Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
E jean carroll lawsuit against trump
Executive summary
President Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review and overturn a $5 million civil judgment that a New York jury found he sexually abused and defamed writer E. Jean Carroll; that petition was filed in November 2025 after lower courts upheld the verdict [1] [2]. Carroll also won a separate $83.3 million defamation judgment that was affirmed by an appeals court in 2025 and remains part of the broader litigation history between the two [3] [4].
1. What the judgments say — two separate verdicts and their dollar figures
A Manhattan jury in 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and defaming her, awarding $5 million in that civil case; Trump later faced a separate trial that produced an $83.3 million defamation award tied to additional public statements, and appeals courts have affirmed at least parts of those awards [5] [3] [4].
2. Why Trump is taking the case to the Supreme Court
Trump’s lawyers contend the trial judge made a series of erroneous evidentiary rulings — including allowing jurors to hear the 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape and testimony from other women about his prior conduct — and argue those rulings improperly prejudiced the jury and produced an “implausible, unsubstantiated” verdict, so they petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene [1] [2] [6].
3. What lower courts ruled before the Supreme Court filing
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Trump’s principal challenges, finding the district judge’s evidentiary choices were within permissible bounds and that Trump failed to show any errors affected his substantial rights; an en banc rehearing request was denied earlier in 2025 [7] [5] [6].
4. How news outlets frame the dispute — competing narratives
Mainstream outlets report Trump’s petition as a legal bid to reverse a jury finding that he sexually abused Carroll and later defamed her, while Trump’s team frames the case as politically motivated “liberal lawfare” and accuses Carroll of waiting decades to make false allegations [1] [6]. Conservative outlets and partisan sites emphasize alleged weaknesses in Carroll’s testimony and the absence of police reports or eyewitnesses, whereas outlets like The New York Times and BBC emphasize the procedural posture and the appeals courts’ rulings upholding the verdicts [8] [1] [2].
5. Evidence issues emphasized by both sides
Trump’s petition highlights the absence of contemporaneous police reports, video, or eyewitnesses and argues Carroll’s account is implausible; the courts that upheld the verdicts focused on the trial record and found the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony and other evidence the jury considered [6] [7].
6. Significance of the “Access Hollywood” tape and other witnesses
A central battleground is whether jurors should have heard the 2005 Access Hollywood tape and testimony from other women alleging misconduct by Trump; the petition says those items were inflammatory and unfairly prejudicial, while the appeals court concluded their admission was within permissible legal judgment [2] [7].
7. What a Supreme Court decision could change — and what it might not
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it could address legal questions about admissibility of propensity or other-acts evidence, standards for harmless error, and trial-court discretion; available sources do not mention precisely which legal doctrines the justices will accept for review beyond the petition’s central complaints [1] [6]. If the court declines review, the lower-court judgments and their enforcement posture remain in place [9].
8. Context: litigation timeline and where things stand
Carroll first went public in 2019; the initial defamation and sexual-assault civil suits produced a 2023 liability finding and subsequent damages trials that together resulted in $88.3 million in awards referenced in reporting, with multiple appeals and post-appeal filings continuing through 2025 as Trump pressed toward the Supreme Court [5] [3].
9. Limitations in current reporting and unanswered questions
Available sources do not provide the full text of the Supreme Court petition on the public docket at the time of reporting, so precise legal arguments and the Court’s schedule for deciding whether to grant review are not fully detailed in these items [1] [6]. They also do not report on any final Supreme Court action as of the cited articles [2] [3].
10. What to watch next
Watch for the Supreme Court’s decision whether to grant certiorari — if it takes the case, expect focused questions about evidentiary standards and prejudicial versus probative value; if it declines, the appeals-court affirmances will likely remain the operative law in these civil proceedings [1] [7]. Media coverage will continue to track enforcement of the judgments and any further appeals or related litigation [3] [4].