What are the latest developments in the E. Jean Carroll sexual assault case against Donald Trump?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
President Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review and overturn a $5 million civil verdict that a Manhattan jury found he sexually abused and defamed writer E. Jean Carroll; the petition argues the trial judge allowed “indefensible” evidentiary rulings including testimony from other accusers and the Access Hollywood tape [1] [2]. Lower courts have repeatedly rejected Trump’s challenges — the 2nd Circuit affirmed the $5 million verdict and later refused en banc rehearing, and a separate $83.3 million defamation judgment against Trump was also upheld on appeal in 2025 [3] [4].
1. Last‑ditch Supreme Court bid: what the petition says
In filings made in November 2025, Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to overturn the $5 million judgment, calling the allegations “facially implausible” and arguing Judge Lewis Kaplan committed a “series of indefensible evidentiary rulings” that prejudiced the jury; the petition specifically objects to allowing testimony from two other women and to playing the 2005 Access Hollywood tape to jurors [2] [1] [5].
2. The appellate path so far: repeated losses in the lower courts
Trump’s request to the high court comes after a string of setbacks: a three‑judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict in December (and issued a mandate in July 2025), the court declined to rehear the case en banc in June 2025, and appellate judges found Judge Kaplan did not abuse discretion by admitting propensity‑style evidence [6] [3] [7].
3. Two separate damage awards, two legal tracks
Carroll secured two different jury awards: the $5 million judgment tied to the sexual‑abuse finding that Trump now asks the Supreme Court to review, and an earlier, larger $83.3 million judgment from a different jury over later defamation remarks — the larger award has also survived appeals, with the 2nd Circuit rejecting Trump’s challenge in September 2025 [1] [4].
4. Core evidentiary disputes at the heart of the appeal
Trump’s petition emphasizes evidentiary disputes: he says jurors should not have heard testimony from other women alleging separate encounters and that the Access Hollywood tape and other materials improperly painted him with “propensity” to commit misconduct. Appellate courts have already concluded those rulings were within the trial court’s discretion and that any errors were harmless [2] [1] [7].
5. Stakes and procedural reality: Supreme Court discretion
The petitions place the Supreme Court as the “last hope” to overturn a unanimous jury verdict, but there is no automatic right to Supreme Court review; the justices decide whether to take the case and may decline, leaving lower‑court rulings standing [5] [8]. Timing for any decision by the high court is not known [5].
6. Competing narratives and political framing
Trump’s team frames the filings as correcting a politicized “witch hunt” and “travesty,” arguing the verdict injures the presidency; Carroll’s advocates counter that appellate courts already found the trial lawful and that the courts must hold powerful figures to account — both narratives are present in the reporting [1] [3] [9].
7. What the record does and does not show
Reporting notes the original jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation but did not find him liable for rape under New York’s penal code; sources also state there was no police report or DNA tying to the event, which Trump’s filing highlights, while jurors credited Carroll and other witnesses [8] [10]. Available sources do not mention any new physical evidence emerging since trial (not found in current reporting).
8. Why this matters beyond the parties
If the Supreme Court takes and reverses the verdict it would erase a civil finding that has already survived appellate scrutiny; if it declines, the $5 million award will stand as another federal‑court judgment against a sitting president who faces multiple legal and political challenges — a fact repeatedly emphasized in coverage [1] [6].
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the cited news reports and court summaries provided; it does not purport to summarize materials not referenced in those sources. All factual claims above are from the cited reporting [2] [1] [3] [10] [5] [8] [4] [6] [7].