What legal grounds is Donald Trump using to appeal the E. Jean Carroll verdicts to the Supreme Court?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Donald Trump’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court challenges a May 2023 jury verdict that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll, principally arguing that the trial court committed reversible evidentiary errors that tainted the jury’s decision and that those errors reflect splits in federal law meriting Supreme Court review [1] [2] [3]. His team also leans on allied filings and amici that stress additional procedural and evidentiary complaints — including claims about Carroll’s refusal of DNA testing — and frames the appeal as part of a broader fight over how courts handle allegations of sexual misconduct and presidential defenses [4] [5].
1. Core legal arguments Trump is pressing to the high court
The petition asks the Supreme Court to overturn the $5 million judgment on the ground that the trial judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, made a “series of indefensible evidentiary rulings,” most centrally permitting so‑called propensity evidence — testimony from other women accusing Trump of sexual misconduct — and allowing the notorious 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape into evidence, which Trump’s lawyers say unfairly prejudiced the jury [3] [6] [7]. The filings argue those rulings went beyond proper Federal Rules of Evidence limits and that the Second Circuit erred by upholding them, thereby warranting review [3] [5].
2. The evidentiary complaints in detail
Trump’s legal team contends jurors heard inflammatory, non‑probative material: testimony from women other than Carroll describing separate allegations, and the Access Hollywood tape in which Trump admits grabbing women, which they say served only to suggest a bad character or propensity to offend rather than proving the specific incident Carroll alleged [3] [6] [7]. The petition says those rulings allowed the jury to rely on emotionally charged but legally improper proof, and that exclusion of such material in other circuits would create a conflict worth resolving by the Supreme Court [3] [5].
3. Broader doctrinal claims and the push for a circuit split
Beyond trial‑level error claims, the appeal advances the view that the Second Circuit’s rulings conflict with other federal appeals courts over admissibility standards for prior‑bad‑act or propensity evidence, a classic vehicle for bringing a “circuit split” to the Supreme Court’s attention [3] [5]. Allies such as America First Legal have amplified peripheral arguments — for example asserting Carroll’s refusal of DNA testing undermined proof and tainted proceedings — to argue the appeals court’s decisions merit nationwide corrective action [4].
4. Strategic aims and collateral stakes of the Supreme Court bid
Trump’s petition is strategic: a win could void the $5 million judgment and potentially undercut the later $83.3 million defamation award tied to related findings, because a favorable legal ruling on admissibility or procedural fairness could ripple into the separate defamation litigation [6] [8]. The campaign framing used by Trump’s team — labeling the trial “Liberal Lawfare” and portraying the case as politically motivated — signals a dual legal and public‑relations objective: reshape precedent while mobilizing political support [5] [9].
5. Counterarguments, prior rulings, and limits to review
Courts below have already rejected these contentions: a Second Circuit panel and later an 8–2 ruling rebuffed Trump’s challenge, finding the trial judge did not err in admitting the contested evidence and upholding the jury verdicts, and the Second Circuit denied en banc rehearing earlier in 2025 [1] [10] [11]. Legal observers note the Supreme Court accepts cases sparingly and generally avoids taking matters that are mere error correction absent broader legal questions or splits — meaning the petition must persuade at least four justices that the evidentiary and doctrinal issues raised have national significance [3] [2].
6. What to watch next
The Supreme Court’s decision whether to docket the petition will be the immediate milestone; reporters and litigants expect the justices to weigh whether the evidentiary claims present an entrenched circuit split or a novel doctrinal issue worthy of resolving — and amici like America First Legal and other conservative groups may press the court to act while Carroll’s advocates and many commentators argue the record does not merit intervention [4] [3] [5]. If the Court takes the case, briefing and argument will expose both the technical evidentiary debates and the larger constitutional shadows — including prior disputes over presidential immunity and the reach of defamation law — that make this appeal potentially consequential far beyond a single civil judgment [11] [6].