Fact check: What is the current status of the sexual assault lawsuit filed by E. Jean Carroll against Donald Trump?

1. A decisive appeals court ruling that kept an $83.3 million judgment in place

The Second Circuit’s opinion affirmed the civil jury’s finding that Trump’s 2019 public denials and social-media statements about Carroll were defamatory and harmful, resulting in an $83.3 million judgment that the court described as supported by the record and reasonable given the “extraordinary” factual backdrop ^{[1] [4]}. The appeals court explicitly rejected arguments that the verdict should be overturned on the merits, and it upheld the jury’s factual findings and damage calculations. This appellate decision was reported across outlets on September 8, 2025, indicating the court’s posture to sustain the civil award against Trump ^[1].

2. The immunity argument failed — appellate court weighed separation-of-powers issues

Trump advanced a presidential-immunity defense, contending that statements made while he was president were subject to immunity from civil liability; the Second Circuit disagreed, finding the Supreme Court’s prior treatments of immunity and the trial record did not shield him for these post-assault denials and social-media attacks in civil court ^{[2] [1]}. The appellate ruling applied established jurisprudential tests rather than creating a broad new immunity doctrine, and its rejection of the immunity claim means the court saw Trump’s speech as actionable in this context. The opinion frames immunity as an insufficient ground to erase the jury’s findings or the damages award ^[2].

3. Why the damages figure survived scrutiny — court cited severity and repetition

The appeals court sustained the jury’s compensatory and punitive damages assessments, emphasizing the “remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented” nature of the defendant’s conduct and the repeated public assaults on Carroll’s reputation, which supported substantial awards under state defamation law applied in the federal action ^{[4] [3]}. The court concluded that the evidence presented at trial justified both the jury’s factual conclusions about harm and the size of the remedy, rejecting arguments that the damages were excessive or unsupported. Reporters summarized the court’s reasoning as finding the awards reasonable in light of the repeated, public denials and social-media statements ^{[4] [3]}.

4. Trump’s legal posture now — appeals likely but constrained

News summaries and court reporting note that Trump has continued to signal intentions to pursue further appeals, potentially up to the U.S. Supreme Court, even as the Second Circuit’s decision narrows his options at the appellate level ^{[5] [1]}. The appellate ruling itself acknowledged the procedural posture: the judgment stands unless overturned by a higher court or modified through post-judgment proceedings. While the appeals court’s rejection of the immunity defense is a significant hurdle for Trump, parties in high-profile civil judgments commonly seek Supreme Court review, meaning the case’s finality is not yet guaranteed ^{[5] [1]}.

5. Broader legal significance — narrow holding but potential national implications

The Second Circuit’s decision contributes to a cluster of cases testing the reach of presidential immunity and the civil liability of public officials for statements made about accusers, delivering a significant appellate precedent within its jurisdiction while not binding elsewhere. Multiple outlets characterized the opinion as a meaningful check on claims of immunity for post-official conduct and as an endorsement of jury determinations about reputational harm in the face of persistent public denial ^{[1] [2]}. The ruling will be cited by parties and courts in future litigation that raises similar immunity and defamation questions.

6. Current procedural status — judgment affirmed at the Second Circuit; case still open to appeal

As of the September 8, 2025 appellate rulings summarized here, the $83.3 million judgment is affirmed by the Second Circuit and remains enforceable unless altered by further court action; however, the defendant retains appellate avenues, including a petition for Supreme Court review, which would be the most likely next step if pursued ^{[1] [3]}. Reporting indicates that the judgment is no longer alive only at the district or circuit level, but a final nationwide resolution depends on whether the litigants seek and obtain review from the U.S. Supreme Court or secure post-judgment relief in lower courts ^{[5] [4]}.

7. What remains unresolved and why the story matters beyond the parties

The immediate unresolved questions are whether Trump will ask the Supreme Court to take the case and whether the judgment will be paid, stayed, or subject to collection proceedings while appeals continue; those procedural steps will determine when the civil award becomes practically effective. The litigation also matters as a test case for how courts balance free-speech protections, presidential immunity claims, and accountability for defamatory conduct by public figures, all issues highlighted across reporting on the appellate opinion ^[4]. The decision’s future evolution will depend on higher-court action and any post-judgment maneuvers by the parties ^[5].