What appeals or post-judgment motions remain pending in E. Jean Carroll’s cases against Donald Trump?
Executive summary
Two final appellate tracks remain active after the trial and initial appeals in E. Jean Carroll’s suits: Mr. Trump has sought Supreme Court review of the $5 million sexual‑abuse/defamation verdict and separately of the $83.3 million defamation judgment, and various related post‑judgment enforcement actions (including a bond and stay) continue to shape immediate collection and enforcement; lower‑court attempts to substitute the U.S. as defendant and to seek rehearing en banc or other relief have largely been rejected but some collateral legal filings remain in play [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The core pending item: Trump’s petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court
Donald Trump has filed petitions asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the civil jury verdicts against him — challenging evidentiary rulings in the $5 million judgment and pressing presidential immunity and related arguments that could affect the larger $83.3 million award — and those petitions have been briefed by Carroll’s counsel urging denial, so the Court’s gatekeeping decision is the principal outstanding procedural milestone [2] [5] [1] [6].
2. Enforcement stayed but not resolved: bond, stay and collection mechanics
While the appeals have proceeded, Trump secured and posted a bond to stay collection of the $83.3 million judgment (state rules require 110% of the judgment), producing a temporary stay of enforcement; that bond and the court’s handling of payment timing were contested post‑judgment issues that a district judge addressed when approving the bond language and rejecting delay provisions sought by Trump’s team [4] [3] [7].
3. Second Circuit aftermath: affirmed, rehearing bids and limits of relief
A Second Circuit panel affirmed both the $5 million and the $83.3 million judgments, rejecting arguments that presidential immunity or prejudicial evidentiary rulings warranted reversal, and the appeals court refused to rehear the matters en banc — leaving Supreme Court review as the primary escape valve sought by Trump’s lawyers [8] [9] [10] [1].
4. DOJ substitution and third‑party filings: an unusual procedural wrinkle
The Department of Justice at one point sought to substitute the United States as defendant, arguing President Trump acted within official capacity for the 2019 statements; the appeals court rejected that request and the DOJ’s posture produced additional litigation threads and competing agendas — including a conservative group later asking the Supreme Court to vacate the judgments on other grounds — meaning parallel filings beyond Trump’s direct petitions also remain relevant to final resolution [3].
5. Competing narratives and legal strategies shaping the remaining appeals
Trump’s filings stress alleged trial errors and inflammatory evidence that his lawyers say should have been excluded, while Carroll’s team argues the record and lower‑court rulings were legally sound and asks the Supreme Court to decline review; outside actors such as America First Legal have filed separate petitions raising different procedural claims (for example about omitted DNA evidence), demonstrating how political and advocacy agendas are folded into the remaining appellate docket [11] [5] [3].
6. What’s left for litigants and what the public should watch next
The most consequential pending action is the Supreme Court’s decision whether to grant certiorari on either or both judgments — if the justices decline, the Second Circuit’s affirmances stand and enforcement proceeds under the existing bond/stay framework; if the Court takes the case, the litigation could produce definitive rulings on presidential immunity and evidentiary standards in civil sexual‑misconduct litigation, or — alternately — narrow procedural relief depending on the grounds the justices choose to consider [2] [1] [10].