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.
What has E Jean Carroll said about Donald Trump's potential appeals?
Executive Summary
E. Jean Carroll has publicly framed the post-trial litigation as the defendant’s continued legal resistance to established verdicts, and her legal team has said they anticipate the appeals process will conclude without changing the core liability findings against Donald Trump. Multiple court actions — including a federal appeals court decision affirming large damage awards and Trump’s petitions to higher courts — prompted Carroll and her counsel to respond that the appeals have failed to overturn the verdicts and that they expect justice to be finalized; these comments come through her lawyers rather than detailed direct statements from Carroll in the record provided [1] [2]. The dispute now centers on specific evidentiary rulings and damage calculations as Trump pursues further appellate review, including petitions to the Supreme Court [3] [4].
1. What Carroll and her team are saying — clarity after appellate setbacks
E. Jean Carroll’s public posture has been relayed primarily by her attorneys, who characterize the appeals as unsuccessful attempts to undo jury findings that Trump sexually abused and defamed Carroll and to reduce sizable damage awards. After a federal appeals panel affirmed an $83.3 million judgment and rejected Trump’s bid to overturn a prior $5 million verdict, Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan stated that Trump’s challenges were unpersuasive and that the jury’s damages were fair and reasonable; Carroll’s camp framed these rulings as vindication and indicated they were awaiting the end of appellate avenues [2] [1]. The emphasis from Carroll’s side is on finality and enforcement of the verdicts, rather than on litigation strategy or further public commentary by Carroll herself, according to the provided sources.
2. What Trump’s legal team argues — procedural and evidentiary objections
Donald Trump’s appeals have focused less on disputing the factual findings of juries than on procedural and evidentiary grounds, with his lawyers asking higher courts to reverse key trial rulings and arguing the allegations were “facially implausible” or politically motivated in some filings. Trump sought to have several evidentiary rulings reversed and has petitioned appellate courts, including a request for en banc review that was denied in mid-2025, and subsequently sought Supreme Court review of portions of the case [3] [5]. From Trump’s camp, the strategy is framed as correcting legal errors rather than relitigating credibility, an approach reflected in filings asking appellate panels and the Supreme Court to scrutinize lower-court decisions and evidentiary determinations [6] [4].
3. Court rulings so far — affirmations and denials that shape the dispute
Federal appeals courts have so far affirmed major aspects of the judgments against Trump, finding the damages awards supported by the record and rejecting attempts to vacate or reduce them; one appeals panel affirmed an $83.3 million award while another rejection of a separate appeal left a $5 million verdict intact. Courts have declined Trump’s en banc petitions and dismissed some of his arguments as unpersuasive, setting the stage for limited further review primarily on legal issues rather than on reweighing the jury’s factual findings [2] [1]. The judiciary’s pattern has been to uphold the jury’s determinations and narrow the remaining disputes to legal questions appropriate for appellate scrutiny, making Supreme Court action the next focal point for any reversal.
4. What remains contested and what Carroll has indicated about next steps
The ongoing questions now involve targeted appellate challenges to evidentiary rulings and calculations of damages, with Trump still pursuing ways to overturn or reduce the awards and Carroll’s team preparing responses and enforcement measures; Carroll’s statements through counsel indicate a desire for the appellate process to end and for the verdicts to be enforced. Carroll herself has not been quoted extensively addressing granular appellate tactics in the provided materials; instead, her lawyers publicly signaled confidence after appeals courts rejected Trump’s bids to change outcomes and noted that the legal process continues with some filings pending, including potential Supreme Court review [4] [5]. The practical implications are whether higher courts will accept narrow legal questions for review and whether Carroll will secure collection or enforcement of the awards if all appeals fail, matters her team says they are preparing to pursue.