What allegations did e. jean carroll make against donald trump and when?
Executive summary
E. Jean Carroll publicly accused Donald J. Trump in 2019 of sexually assaulting her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in Manhattan in the mid‑1990s; a federal jury in May 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming her and awarded $5 million, a judgment the appeals court later upheld and that Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn [1] [2] [3]. Carroll’s allegation first appeared in 2019 when she said Trump raped her decades earlier; the jury found him liable for a lesser degree of sexual abuse, not rape, and later juries also awarded separate defamation damages [4] [5] [6].
1. The core allegation and the timeline
Carroll told New York Magazine in 2019 that Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman department‑store dressing room in the mid‑1990s; that public accusation triggered two separate civil cases: one addressing sexual abuse and related defamation, and another focused on later defamatory statements Trump made after 2019 [4] [7]. A New York federal jury in May 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in that mid‑1990s incident and for defaming her when he denied the allegation, and awarded $5 million in the first case [1] [2].
2. What the juries actually found — abuse vs. rape
The trials did not mirror Carroll’s strongest criminal‑language claim in popular accounts. Although Carroll used the word “rape” in some filings and accounts, the May 2023 civil jury was tasked with whether Trump committed sexual abuse under New York law at the time; the jury found him liable for sexual abuse (a lesser offense under the statute) and did not find him liable for rape as narrowly defined by New York law [5] [2].
3. Defamation claims and subsequent awards
Carroll pursued separate defamation claims because Trump repeatedly denied and attacked her allegation in public statements and on social media after 2019. Those statements formed the basis for additional civil judgments: the initial trial incorporated defamation findings tied to his denials, and later proceedings led to much larger awards for Carroll related to continued attacks, including an $83.3 million judgment that appellate courts have considered and enforced in part [6] [8] [7].
4. Evidence presented and contested courtroom moves
Carroll’s team presented broader evidence to support credibility, including testimony by two other women who alleged similar misconduct by Trump and the use of the “Access Hollywood” tape in the courtroom; Trump’s lawyers argued those rulings were prejudicial, calling them “indefensible” and saying they improperly allowed propensity evidence [9] [3] [10]. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected those objections, upholding the district court’s evidentiary rulings and the $5 million verdict [2] [10].
5. Appeals, Supreme Court petition, and partisan framing
After the appeals court affirmed the verdict, Trump sought en banc review and later petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the $5 million judgment, calling Carroll’s allegations “facially implausible” and politically motivated and arguing trial‑court evidentiary errors; the Supreme Court petition is part of an aggressive legal strategy to erase the jury findings [10] [3] [1]. Trump and his spokespersons frame the litigation as partisan “lawfare,” while Carroll’s lawyers and supporters say the verdicts vindicate her account and protect survivors’ rights [1] [11].
6. Areas sources do not resolve and outstanding limits
Available sources do not mention the full contents of Carroll’s original 2019 New York Magazine piece beyond the high‑level allegation, nor do they provide the complete trial transcripts here; specific forensic evidence such as DNA test outcomes and full witness cross‑examinations are not detailed in the current reporting set [5] [2]. Sources disagree about emphasis: court documents and jury findings are presented as definitive in reporting (upheld by the appeals court), while Trump’s filings characterize the evidence as implausible and improperly admitted—both positions are present in the record [10] [3].
7. Why this matters now
The Carroll cases have become legal precedents about how courts treat sexual‑assault allegations in civil trials, the admissibility of other‑acts or propensity evidence, and the line between protected political speech and actionable defamation; those legal issues are central to the appeals and the Supreme Court petition [2] [10]. The litigation also has political consequences: Trump’s challenges are framed as both a legal defense and part of a broader political message to supporters, while Carroll’s victories have been portrayed by supporters as accountability for public statements and harassment [3] [6].
If you want, I can extract the exact dates and quotes from the 2019 New York Magazine piece and the May 2023 jury verdict documents referenced in these sources, or produce a concise timeline of major court rulings through the most recent Supreme Court filing [1] [3].