High Court declines second Trump appeal in Carroll case
The US Supreme Court has declined for the second time to hear former President Donald Trump's appeal of a $5 million civil verdict in favor of E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of sexual abuse and defamation. The unsigned order, which carried no explanation, rejected Trump's request that the justices reconsider their June decision denying his earlier appeal of the 2023 jury verdict.
A jury found in 2023 that Trump had sexually abused Carroll and defamed her, though it did not find that he had raped her. The case centered on statements Trump made in 2022, when he called Carroll's claim a "hoax" and a "con job" in a social media post. Carroll, a former advice columnist for Elle magazine, first came forward with her allegations in 2019, prompting Trump to deny the claims and assert that she had lied.
In June, after the high court's initial denial, Carroll collected nearly $5.63 million from Trump, representing the original verdict plus interest.
Carroll's attorney calls verdict final
Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said the verdict is final and cannot be challenged in any court. Trump's lawyers, meanwhile, have contended that the trial was unfair.
The high court's latest order is the second time it has declined to intervene in the civil case. The justices rarely grant requests for reconsideration, making Monday's decision consistent with standard practice.
Separate $83.3 million defamation verdict still under appeal
The Supreme Court is weighing Trump's appeal of a separate $83.8 million jury verdict for defaming Carroll in 2019, during his first term as president. In that case, Trump's lawyers argue that presidential immunity shields him from Carroll's claims and that lower courts wrongly decided that he had forfeited that defense. They also contend that the 2024 Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, which protects former presidents from criminal prosecution for actions taken within their core constitutional powers, should apply to the civil case.
The Carroll cases are civil lawsuits, not criminal prosecutions, and the 2024 immunity decision did not directly address civil liability. Still, Trump's appeal presses the same issues of presidential power that have featured in other recent high court disputes.
Broader legal context
In the current term, the Supreme Court has issued several rulings involving Trump and executive power. Among them, the court allowed Trump to revoke temporary protected status for Haitian and Syrian immigrants, and it approved his ability to fire heads of independent regulatory agencies, overturning a longstanding precedent, with an exception for the Federal Reserve.
The court's willingness to take up these cases has drawn attention, but its decisions have varied, including an earlier ruling that preserved the right to birthright citizenship, when Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the liberal justices in rejecting a challenge to it. The court's action in the Carroll appeal stands out as one instance in which it chose not to intervene, leaving the jury's verdict intact.