E. Jean lawsuit
Executive summary
E. Jean Carroll has secured multiple favorable rulings in two related civil suits against Donald J. Trump: a jury found Trump sexually abused her and defamed her, producing a $5 million award that an appeals court upheld, and a separate defamation trial later produced an $83.3 million judgment that also survived appellate review [1] [2] [3]. Trump is seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court of at least one of those rulings, while Carroll’s team is urging the justices to refuse review and let the lower-court judgments stand [4] [5] [6].
1. The litigation trail: two trials, two big verdicts
Carroll initially sued Trump over allegations that he sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s and later defamed her by publicly denying the allegation; a jury found he sexually abused Carroll and defamed her, awarding $5 million in damages that was affirmed on appeal [1] [2]. Separately, a second civil proceeding focused on statements Trump made while president and resulted in a jury awarding Carroll $83.3 million for defamation, a verdict that the 2nd U.S. Circuit later upheld as well [3] [7].
2. Trump’s appeals and the Justice Department’s role
Trump has repeatedly appealed the rulings, including a request that the Supreme Court take up portions of the case; those appeals have raised procedural and constitutional issues such as presidential immunity, whether statements made while in office are covered by the Westfall Act and Federal Tort Claims Act, and whether the president can be treated as a government “employee” for substitution by the United States [8] [9]. The Justice Department intervened at earlier stages to argue for substitution under the Westfall Act, a strategy the district court rejected when it concluded the president was not an “employee” for that statute’s purposes and that the statements were not within the scope of employment [8] [9].
3. What the appeals courts said — and declined to revisit
The 2nd Circuit affirmed the $5 million decision and twice rejected petitions to rehear or to disturb the rulings, with an 8–2 vote refusing to rehear the appeal over the sexual-abuse and related defamation findings [2]. Separately, the appeals court also upheld the $83.3 million defamation judgment, finding the district court’s evidentiary rulings were within permissible bounds or harmless if erroneous [1] [3] [7].
4. The Supreme Court pivot: why both sides are pushing
Trump’s camp seeks Supreme Court review to overturn or narrow the lower courts’ holdings on immunity and scope-of-employment questions that, if taken up, could set broader precedent for presidential liability [4] [8]. Carroll’s lawyers have filed an opposition brief urging the justices to decline review, arguing the 2nd Circuit correctly applied the law and that the evidence and trial rulings were proper under Federal Rules of Evidence [4] [5] [6]. The stakes are institutional as well as personal: a grant of review could reshape limits on lawsuits against presidents, while denial would let two substantial, fact-bound damage awards stand [4] [3].
5. Competing narratives, political overtones and litigation posture
Reporting and courtroom advocacy have been infused with political significance: Trump framed the litigation as part of a broader assault on his candidacy, while Carroll’s team has cast the suits as accountability for sexual violence and defamation [3] [10]. News outlets and legal newsletters emphasize different angles — procedural novelty on immunity questions, or the factual credibility of Carroll’s claim — reflecting implicit agendas: appellate strategy from Trump’s lawyers and a damage-recovery posture from Carroll’s side [4] [5] [10]. Independent legal commentators have noted that some issues presented are of “first impression,” meaning the courts’ interpretations could have consequences beyond this case [8].
6. Where this stands now and what’s unknown
As of the latest filings, Carroll has urged the Supreme Court to decline Trump’s petition and lower-court judgments remain in force while further procedural skirmishes continue; whether the high court will take the case is unsettled and, if it does, the resulting opinions could resolve novel immunity and statutory questions the lower courts have reached [4] [6] [8]. Reporting identifies the core legal contentions and the two affirmed damage awards, but public sources provided here do not include any eventual Supreme Court decision or final collection status on the judgments, so that outcome remains beyond the available reporting [2] [3].