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
Executive summary
President Donald Trump has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a civil jury’s finding that he sexually abused and defamed writer E. Jean Carroll and to overturn a $5 million judgment against him; an additional $83.3 million defamation award tied to later statements was upheld by an appeals court (jury $5M; defamation judgment $83.3M) [1] [2]. Trump’s petition argues trial judge Lewis A. Kaplan erred in admitting testimony and evidence (including the “Access Hollywood” tape and other women’s accounts), and the case now hinges on whether the Supreme Court will take the appeal [3] [4].
1. What happened in the trials — verdicts, amounts, and timeline
A federal jury in May 2023 found Trump liable in civil court for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and awarded her $5 million; a separate jury later found he defamed her and an appeals court affirmed a roughly $83.3 million damages award for his repeated public attacks after that verdict [1] [2]. The appeals court issued a per curiam ruling upholding the defamation award in September 2025, and Trump has exhausted some intermediate options — losing an en banc bid in June 2025 — before asking the Supreme Court in November 2025 to review the $5 million verdict [5] [6].
2. On what legal grounds is Trump asking the Supreme Court to intervene?
Trump’s petition says Judge Kaplan made “indefensible evidentiary rulings” by admitting testimony from two other women and allowing the jury to hear the “Access Hollywood” tape — evidence his lawyers call inflammatory propensity evidence that unfairly prejudiced the jury [3] [4]. His team frames the appeal as a conflict among federal courts about how such evidence should be treated and also renews arguments previously raised about presidential immunity and other trial rulings, which lower courts rejected [4] [5].
3. What have appellate courts already said?
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit previously rejected Trump’s challenges and affirmed the $5 million verdict and related rulings; the appeals court also upheld the larger defamation judgment as “reasonable in light of the extraordinary and egregious facts” [3] [5]. The court denied a request for an en banc rehearing in June 2025, leaving the path to the Supreme Court as the next—and discretionary—step [5].
4. What are the key pieces of disputed evidence and competing perspectives?
Prosecutors (Carroll’s side) and the trial judge allowed testimony from other women alleging similar assaults and the “Access Hollywood” tape; Carroll’s attorneys and supporters say such items were probative about credibility and pattern, and appellate rulings have accepted that view [3] [7]. Trump’s lawyers call those same items inflammatory and legally improper propensity evidence that prejudiced jurors; his petition asks the Supreme Court to resolve that evidentiary dispute and to overturn the verdict [4] [8]. The parties sharply disagree on whether the evidence was admissible and whether admitting it created reversible error [4] [3].
5. What could the Supreme Court do, and how likely is review?
The Supreme Court has no obligation to hear the case; it accepts a small fraction of petitions. If it takes the case, it could affirm, reverse, or narrow the evidentiary standards for admitting other-acts testimony in civil sexual-assault suits — potentially affecting many future cases [8] [7]. Available sources do not mention a predicted timetable for the Court’s decision on whether to grant review, nor do they report any internal signals from justices about the petition [8].
6. Broader context and stakes beyond money
Carroll’s legal victories have been framed in media reporting as a rare civil accountability moment for a sitting president on sexual-assault and defamation claims, and her attorneys emphasize vindication of her claims [7] [1]. Trump’s team frames continued litigation as defending due process and seeks to challenge how courts balance propensity evidence against prejudice [4] [3]. The dispute also intersects with prior arguments about presidential immunity and government substitution for statements the Justice Department has characterized as made in an official capacity — issues litigated in briefing at lower levels [5].
Limitations: Reporting in the provided sources focuses on the November 2025 petition and the prior appellate rulings; available sources do not provide the Supreme Court’s response or any subsequent filings beyond the petition itself [1] [5].