The US Supreme Court on Monday refused a request from President Donald Trump’s lawyers to re‑open consideration of a civil jury verdict that found he sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll and later defamed her. The decision leaves in place a US$5 million judgment that Trump paid after an earlier denial of review in June, while a second, larger appeal over presidential immunity is still before the court.
Court declines rehearing; immunity issue unresolved
The court denied Trump’s petition to reconsider its earlier refusal to hear the appeal. The initial verdict, returned by a New York jury, held Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a Manhattan department store in the mid‑1990s and for defaming her when he denied the allegation in 2019.
Trump’s lawyers have also asked the high court to overturn a separate $83 million verdict, arguing that statements he made about Carroll while he was president are protected by presidential immunity. That appeal has not yet been decided by the justices.
How the rulings have unfolded
At a 2023 trial in New York, Carroll, a long‑time advice columnist and former television talk‑show host, testified that an encounter in the 1990s at Bergdorf Goodman — a luxury department store opposite Trump Tower — became a violent attack. The jury found Trump liable on both the sexual‑abuse and defamation claims.
Following the court’s refusal in June to take up his appeal of the US$5 million award, Trump paid that judgment. The more substantial US$83 million award — which arises from separate findings and involves the question of whether a sitting president can claim immunity for defamatory remarks made while in office — remains under challenge.
Who is involved and what is at stake?
- E. Jean Carroll — the plaintiff and former columnist who publicly alleged assault and sought civil redress.
- Donald Trump — the defendant, who denies the allegations and is pursuing appellate relief, including an immunity argument for comments made while president.
- The US Supreme Court — which has refused further review of the US$5 million verdict but has not yet acted on the appeal concerning the US$83 million award and presidential immunity.
The pending immunity appeal raises a constitutional question with implications beyond this case: whether the president has absolute protection from civil suits for actions or statements made while performing official duties. If the court accepts and decides that appeal in favour of immunity, it could narrow the circumstances in which former presidents face civil liability for conduct alleged to have occurred both before and during their terms.
Immediate consequences and the broader picture
For Carroll, the refusal to reinstate review of the smaller award means the earlier judgment stands. For Trump, the court’s inaction on the larger immunity claim keeps alive a constitutional fight that could affect not only damages awards in this matter but also how presidential conduct is treated in civil courts going forward.
Neither side has new public statements recorded in the materials accompanying the court’s decision beyond the factual records of the trials and subsequent filings. The Associated Press noted that it does not identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly; Carroll has done so.
| Verdict | Amount | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Defamation and sexual‑abuse finding | US$5 million | Judgment paid; Supreme Court refused rehearing |
| Separate verdict involving presidential immunity | US$83 million | Appeal pending before the Supreme Court |
The Supreme Court’s decisions — whether to hear high‑profile appeals or to decline them — shape not only the immediate outcomes for litigants but also set precedents that affect future litigation and the limits of official immunity. Observers will watch closely to see whether the court moves on the immunity appeal, which could recalibrate the balance between accountability and executive protection under US law.
For now, the US$5 million finding remains intact, the larger US$83 million question remains unresolved, and the constitutional debate over presidential immunity continues before the nation’s highest court.
