The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear Donald Trump's appeal of the $5 million civil verdict finding him liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of author E. Jean Carroll, a decision that leaves the judgment intact after years of legal challenges and brings Carroll closer to collecting the award.
The Court offered no explanation for its refusal, nor did it explain months of delays in scheduling Trump's appeal for conference. Trump responded on Truth Social, calling the case "fake" and accusing New York of crafting a law specifically to target him.
The ruling closes one chapter of a sprawling legal battle between the sitting president and Carroll, but a far larger financial question remains: Trump is separately pursuing a Supreme Court appeal of an $83.3 million defamation verdict in a related Carroll lawsuit, a figure that has now swelled past $100 million with accrued interest.
Carroll first alleged that Trump sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in New York City in the spring of 1996. She sued Trump in 2022 for defamation and battery, claiming he defamed her by asserting she had fabricated the story to boost book sales.
A jury found Trump liable on both counts and awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. Trump deposited $5.5 million into a court-controlled account in 2023 following the verdict.
Trump's legal team then mounted a series of appeals. A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his challenge, ruling that the trial judge's decisions did not warrant a new trial. The full Second Circuit turned aside his argument that presidential immunity should shield him from liability. In June 2025, a separate appellate panel also ruled against him.
His attorneys filed a petition to the Supreme Court in January, raising two main objections to the trial proceedings overseen by Judge Lewis Kaplan. They argued the judge should not have allowed the jury to see the 2005 Access Hollywood tape. They also argued Kaplan acted improperly by permitting testimony from two other women who alleged Trump had sexually assaulted them.
Beyond the evidentiary complaints, Trump's attorneys made a broader constitutional argument. The Daily Mail reported that the filing stated forcing the President to divert attention from his official duties "threatens the fabric of our republic," and declared: "The mistreatment of a President cannot be allowed to stand."
The Supreme Court was unmoved. It declined to take up the case, with no written order or public reasoning.
Trump did not accept the outcome quietly. He posted on Truth Social:
"Surprisingly, the Supreme Court declined to 'review' a Fake Case brought against me by a woman I never met (Decades old celebrity photo line, standing with her husband, does not count!)"
In a second passage, Trump took aim at the legal framework that enabled the lawsuit:
"New York State created a Law, for an instant speck of time, going back many decades, in order to wrongfully 'nab' me. It was tailormade, and this Injustice cannot be allowed to stand!"
Trump has characterized the litigation as "lawfare" and vowed to keep fighting with "all of my power and strength." The specific New York State law he referenced, which temporarily opened a window for older claims to be filed, has been a point of contention throughout the case. Trump's position is that the law was designed to target him. That claim has not been adjudicated as a legal finding.
The DOJ's separate perjury investigation into Carroll over questions about hidden funding adds another layer to a legal saga that has raised legitimate concerns about the fairness and motivations behind the litigation.
While Monday's ruling settles the $5 million question, the larger financial exposure remains unresolved. Carroll also won an $83.3 million defamation verdict against Trump in a related 2019 lawsuit. That figure has grown past $100 million with interest.
Trump's attorneys are expected to press a separate Supreme Court appeal of that verdict in the coming days. The outcome will determine whether Trump faces a nine-figure payout on top of the $5 million now locked in.
Trump has already sought a stay of the $83.3 million judgment while pursuing his immunity arguments at the high court. The Second Circuit has not been receptive. As we previously reported, the Second Circuit denied Trump rehearing in the defamation case, clearing the path to the Supreme Court, the same court that just refused to intervene on the $5 million verdict.
Monday's refusal fits a broader pattern of judicial friction for the Trump administration. The Supreme Court has been poised to hand Trump setbacks on multiple fronts, from birthright citizenship to agency personnel decisions.
The $5.5 million Trump deposited in 2023 remains in a court-controlled account. Whether those funds have been released to Carroll following Monday's decision is unclear. The Daily Mail contacted the White House for comment; no response was reported.
What is clear is the exhaustion of Trump's appellate options on this particular verdict. He lost at the trial level. He lost before a three-judge appellate panel. He lost before the full Second Circuit. He lost before a separate appellate panel in June 2025. And now the Supreme Court has declined to step in.
Trump's legal team raised arguments that deserve serious consideration, particularly the question of whether a sitting president should be forced to litigate civil matters arising from decades-old allegations, and whether the trial court's evidentiary decisions stacked the deck. Those are not frivolous concerns. But every court that reviewed them reached the same conclusion.
The president has also acknowledged the likelihood of losing other legal battles at the Supreme Court, suggesting a clear-eyed awareness that the judiciary is not functioning as a reliable backstop for executive priorities.
The $83.3 million appeal is now the main event. If the Supreme Court refuses that petition as well, Trump's total exposure in the Carroll litigation will exceed $105 million, a staggering sum for civil cases rooted in allegations from nearly three decades ago, pursued under a retroactive state law, and litigated while the defendant serves as President of the United States.
The procedural history alone raises questions that go beyond Trump. When a state legislature opens a narrow window to revive time-barred claims, and a trial judge allows evidence that defense attorneys call prejudicial, and every appellate court defers to those decisions without exception, it is fair to ask whether the system produced justice or simply produced a result.
That question will follow this case long after the checks are cashed.
