Supreme Court again rejects Trump’s bid to overturn E Jean Carroll sex abuse case
Supreme Court Again Rejects Trump's Carroll Bid
Ninoda.com – The Supreme Court again rejects Trump's attempt to undo a federal jury verdict finding him liable for sexual abuse and defamation against writer E Jean Carroll. For the second time, the justices declined to grant review, posting their denial on Monday's routine order list without explanation. The ruling makes the jury's unanimous finding final and unchallengeable in any American court, closing the last appellate avenue available to the former president on these claims.
Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, called the outcome a vindication of the jury's work and confirmed that no further procedural path remains for the defendant.
"We are pleased that the United States Supreme Court has declined again to hear this case. As a result, the jury's unanimous verdict that Donald Trump sexually assaulted and then defamed E. Jean Carroll is now final and cannot be challenged in any court."
How the Case Reached the Highest Court
Carroll, an 82-year-old former magazine columnist, filed suit alleging that Trump assaulted her inside a Manhattan department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. A separate defamation claim stemmed from a 2022 Truth Social post in which he dismissed her allegations and called her "not my type." In July, Trump settled the civil claim by paying more than $5 million (£3.6 million) in damages, then characterized the episode as a hoax on social media shortly afterward.
His legal team argued at trial and on appeal that the judge improperly admitted evidence shaping jurors' perceptions of him, pointing specifically to the 2005 Access Hollywood clip in which he used crude language describing his habits around women. After the court's initial June denial of review, Trump published a lengthy Truth Social post pledging to keep fighting what he called the
"weaponisation and lawfare case" and the "ridiculous" defamation claim. "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," he wrote.
As of publication, he had not commented publicly on the latest ruling.
Why This Petition Was a Long Shot
Legal analysts noted that asking the highest court to revisit its own prior denial of review is an exceedingly rare procedural move. The justices grant such requests only in the most exceptional circumstances, making the second petition an unusual long-shot manoeuvre. The Supreme Court again rejects Trump's bid precisely because the procedural bar makes re-argument nearly impossible absent a showing of extraordinary error that would distinguish the matter from the earlier denial.
A Separate Defamation Appeal Remains Pending
Distinct from the sexual-abuse verdict, Trump has separately petitioned the justices to overturn a federal civil defamation judgment awarding Carroll $83.3 million. His attorneys argue that a sitting president cannot be sued for remarks made in an official capacity. The court has yet to rule on that matter, leaving one thread of the litigation still open and potentially years of further briefing ahead.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the denial mean for E Jean Carroll?
The jury's unanimous verdict is now final. No further appeal exists in any federal or state court, and the damages award stands as the last word on the sexual-abuse and related defamation claims. Carroll's legal team confirmed that the judgment cannot be reopened through any remaining procedural mechanism.
Can Trump still challenge the defamation judgment?
Yes. A separate petition asking the justices to overturn the $83.3 million defamation award is still pending. That appeal raises the question of whether a sitting president can be sued for official-capacity remarks, and the court has not yet ruled, meaning the matter could remain unresolved for months or longer.
Why did the Court deny review twice?
The justices typically grant certiorari only when lower courts conflict or a question of broad national importance demands resolution. In this instance, no such conflict existed, and the procedural posture—seeking reconsideration of a prior denial—made the petition an outlier that the Court declined to entertain on either occasion.