Former President Donald Trump has formally petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to take up his appeal in the civil case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, which found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The verdict — initially rendered by a New York jury in 2023 — awarded Carroll more than $5 million and Trump is now seeking to set it aside, arguing serious legal errors tainted the process.
Appeal Marks Trump’s Final Legal Bid
Trump’s legal team asked the Supreme Court to consider whether the judgment against him should stand — after both the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and an en banc review rejected his appeals. The original verdict found that a preponderance of evidence supported Carroll’s claim that Trump sexually abused her in a New York department store in the mid-1990s. Although the jury declined to award damages for rape, the trial judge later stated the finding implied he had “digitally raped” her when inserting his fingers.
Trump’s appeal accuses the trial court of making multiple evidentiary mistakes and labels Carroll’s allegations as “facially implausible” and politically driven.
Defamation Verdict Separately Pursued
In addition to the abuse claim, Trump is appealing a separate January 2024 federal jury verdict that held him liable for defamatory statements against Carroll. Together, the two verdicts have imposed more than $88 million in damages. The Supreme Court represents his last remaining path to overturn or reduce these rulings, given previous appellate avenues have closed.
Political and Legal Stakes
Trump’s legal filing frames the case within the broader context of what his team calls “witch hunts” and “lawfare” funded by the opposing political side. The appeal thus carries both legal and political significance — dovetailing with his ongoing public positioning. Meanwhile, Carroll’s attorneys, backed by external funding, await the Court’s decision on whether it will hear the case and potentially shape precedent on presidential immunity, civil liability and sexual-abuse jurisprudence.
