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 are the details and outcomes of the Manhattan case alleging sexual assault in the 1990s involving Trump and a minor?
Executive summary
A federal jury in Manhattan found former President Donald Trump civilly liable in May 2023 for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll in a department‑store dressing room in the mid‑1990s and for later defaming her; the jury awarded Carroll $5 million, a separate related defamation judgment later reached $83.3 million and was upheld on appeal [1] [2] [3]. Trump has repeatedly denied the allegations, appealed, lost at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and most recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the $5 million verdict [4] [5] [6].
1. The allegation and the initial lawsuit: what Carroll says happened
E. Jean Carroll publicly accused Donald Trump in 2019 of sexually assaulting her in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan in the mid‑1990s; she originally described the incident in a 2019 memoir and then sued Trump for defamation after he denied the allegation and called her a liar [1] [5].
2. How the civil case reached trial and what claims were tried
Carroll’s litigation began as a defamation suit stemming from Trump’s public denials in 2019; after New York enacted the Adult Survivors Act, she brought an added battery/sexual‑assault claim and pursued both defamation and battery in federal court, leading to a 2023 civil trial in Manhattan [1] [4].
3. The May 2023 jury verdict: liability, not criminal guilt
A federal jury in May 2023 concluded, by the civil preponderance standard, that Trump was liable for sexually abusing Carroll and for defaming her; jurors awarded a total of $5 million in that trial (including compensatory, punitive and reputational‑repair items) — a civil finding of liability, not a criminal conviction [1] [2] [7].
4. Evidence and contested rulings at trial
The trial record included Carroll’s testimony, contemporaneous witnesses she spoke with after the alleged incident, a 1987 photo of Carroll with Trump, testimony from two other women (Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff) who have accused Trump of assault, the 2005 “Access Hollywood” recording, and Trump’s deposition footage; Trump’s lawyers unsuccessfully argued on appeal that admitting testimony from other accusers and the tape was erroneous [8] [4] [2].
5. Appeals and higher‑court rulings up to the present
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s evidentiary rulings and upheld the $5 million judgment; judges found no reversible error in admitting evidence of other assaults under federal rules that permit such evidence in sexual‑assault civil cases [4] [2]. Separately, a much larger defamation award tied to later statements by Trump — reported as $83.3 million — was also upheld on appeal in 2025 [3] [9].
6. Trump’s response and the current procedural posture
Trump has consistently denied Carroll’s allegations, called the verdict unjust, and pursued multiple appeals; in November 2025 he petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the $5 million civil verdict, arguing among other things that the trial judge erred in allowing certain testimony [6] [5] [10]. Whether the Supreme Court will take the case is uncertain [6] [11].
7. What the civil outcomes mean and what they do not mean
Reported legal analysis clarifies that a civil finding of liability does not equate to criminal guilt: civil liability requires a preponderance of the evidence and results in damages, whereas criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and carries criminal penalties — available sources stress this distinction [7]. The jury in Carroll’s trial did not find Trump liable for rape as defined under New York’s penal code, though it did find him liable for sexual abuse [11].
8. Broader context and competing perspectives
Proponents of Carroll’s case and the Second Circuit’s ruling emphasize that the record supported admitting other‑acts evidence and that damages were justified given the jury’s assessment [4] [2]. Trump and his lawyers characterize the litigation as politically motivated “lawfare” and continue to contest evidentiary rulings and verdicts in higher courts [5] [10]. Observers note the case was litigated amid many other Trump legal matters and intense public scrutiny, which both sides have framed to their advantage [3] [1].
Limitations and what’s not found in current reporting: sources provided here do not describe every piece of evidence in the record, do not include full texts of appellate opinions beyond summaries, and do not state whether the Supreme Court has yet acted on the November 2025 petition (available sources do not mention a Supreme Court decision) [5] [6].