The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear President Donald Trump's appeal of a $5 million jury verdict finding him liable for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll, ending his legal challenge to that particular judgment and leaving the award intact.
The Court issued no explanation for its decision, standard practice when the justices decline a petition, and no justice filed a written dissent. That includes the three justices Trump himself appointed to the bench. CNBC reported that the denial forecloses any further appeal of the 2023 verdict, though a separate, far larger judgment against Trump in a related case remains in active litigation.
The decision marks the final word on the first of two civil verdicts Carroll won against Trump in Manhattan federal court. It does not resolve the second, an $83.3 million defamation award that Trump's legal team is still contesting before a lower federal appeals court.
A Manhattan federal jury in May 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in the mid-1990s and for defaming her when he denied the allegation. The jury deliberated roughly three hours before returning the $5 million verdict, National Review reported.
Carroll first publicly accused Trump of raping her in a 2019 New York magazine article. She later filed a civil lawsuit alleging rape and defamation. Trump has consistently denied the allegations and said he never met Carroll.
Trump's attorneys raised two principal objections in seeking Supreme Court review. They argued the trial judge improperly allowed testimony from two other women who alleged sexual misconduct by Trump, and that the judge should not have permitted the "Access Hollywood" tape to be played for the jury. In a filing earlier this year, Trump's legal team told the Court the Second Circuit's decision upholding the verdict contained "significant errors" and that Carroll "obtained a $5 million award" as a result.
The trial judge, unnamed in available reporting, wrote that the jury's finding of liability for sexual abuse by forceful digital penetration amounted to what National Review described as "an implicit determination that Mr. Trump digitally raped her," according to the judge's own written opinion.
Carroll's attorney Roberta Kaplan framed the decision as final vindication:
"Today's Supreme Court decision affirms once and for all the jury's unanimous verdict that President Donald J. Trump sexually assaulted and defamed E. Jean Carroll. His multiple efforts to appeal that verdict have all failed and today's ruling ends his quest to avoid accountability for his actions."
Trump responded on Truth Social, calling the lawsuit a "fake case" and vowing to press on. The AP reported that Trump characterized the proceedings as politically motivated.
"I will continue the fight against this Weaponization and Lawfare Case against me, including the ridiculous claim of Defamation, with all of my power and strength. This Case is really against the United States of America, and all it stands for, and should never be allowed to happen to another President, or Candidate to be!"
A spokesperson for Trump's legal team issued a separate statement calling the case a "Democrat-funded travesty" and one of several "Witch Hunts," adding that "President Trump will keep winning against Liberal Lawfare, as he continues to focus on his mission to Make America Great Again."
The relationship between the Trump administration and the Supreme Court has drawn sustained attention in recent months. Vice President Vance's quiet dinner with Chief Justice Roberts earlier this year underscored the delicate dynamics between the executive branch and the Court.
Monday's order resolves only the first Carroll verdict. The second, a separate Manhattan federal jury's $83.3 million defamation award, remains under appeal at a lower federal appeals court. The New York Post reported that the larger judgment, handed down in January 2024, is still being contested, with no timeline publicly set for resolution.
Trump's attorneys argued in a January filing that it is "deeply damaging to the fabric of our republic for President Trump, in the midst of a historic presidency, to have to take his focus away from his singular and unique duties as chief executive to continue fighting against decades-old, false allegations."
That argument, that a sitting president should not be dragged through civil litigation rooted in events allegedly occurring nearly three decades ago, did not persuade any of the nine justices to grant review. Whether the same dynamic plays out when the larger verdict reaches the high court remains an open question.
Trump has previously been vocal about his frustrations with the judiciary. He called on the Supreme Court to apply "common sense" in other high-profile disputes with the courts, and has warned that adverse rulings could set damaging precedents for the presidency itself.
The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene means the $5 million verdict is now final. Trump is liable for that amount. No further legal avenue exists to challenge it.
But the broader legal saga is far from over. The $83.3 million defamation verdict, more than sixteen times the size of the first award, could eventually make its own way to the Supreme Court if Trump's team exhausts its appeals at the circuit level. Trump's lawyers have signaled they intend to fight that judgment aggressively.
The Second Circuit has been a frequent venue for legal battles involving the Trump administration. In a separate matter, that same appeals court rejected a Trump detention policy, deepening a circuit split that could itself force a Supreme Court showdown.
For now, the Carroll case stands as one of the few civil judgments ever entered against a sitting president. Carroll's legal team will treat Monday's order as a landmark. Trump's team will treat it as one more example of what they call weaponized litigation against a political figure.
Justice Sotomayor, who served as circuit justice for the Second Circuit and handled the initial procedural steps in Trump's appeal request, has herself called the Trump administration's emergency Supreme Court appeals "unprecedented." The Carroll petition, however, followed the ordinary appellate track, and still ended the same way.
Reasonable people can disagree about the merits of a decades-old civil claim adjudicated in a Manhattan courtroom with evidentiary rulings that Trump's lawyers called prejudicial. What cannot be disputed is the procedural finality: nine justices, including three Trump appointees, declined to touch it.
Trump's legal team raised legitimate questions about trial procedure, the admission of other-acts testimony and the "Access Hollywood" tape are the kinds of evidentiary disputes appellate courts exist to review. The Second Circuit reviewed them and affirmed. The Supreme Court reviewed the petition and passed.
The president himself has framed this litigation as part of a broader pattern of politically motivated legal action against him, what he and his allies call "lawfare." That argument resonates with millions of voters who watched multiple prosecutions and civil suits converge on a single political figure in an election cycle. Whether the Carroll case fits that pattern or stands apart from it is a judgment each citizen can make.
What matters now is the $83.3 million verdict still working its way through the system. That number dwarfs the $5 million award the Court just let stand. If Trump's lawyers believe the trial court committed reversible error, the appellate process will test that claim. If they are right, a higher court will say so. If they are wrong, the price tag gets much steeper.
The system worked exactly as designed on Monday, which is cold comfort when you believe the inputs were flawed from the start.
