Washington, D.C. – November 11, 2025 – In a bold escalation of his ongoing legal battles, U.S. President Donald Trump has formally petitioned the Supreme Court to review and potentially overturn a $5 million civil verdict that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s. The filing, submitted on Monday and reviewed by multiple news outlets, marks the first time the high-profile case has reached the nation's highest court, raising questions about evidentiary standards, presidential accountability, and the intersection of civil litigation with political motivations.
The petition challenges a May 2023 jury decision in Manhattan federal court, where Carroll, a former Elle magazine advice columnist, prevailed after accusing Trump of assaulting her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in spring 1996. Carroll testified that what began as a chance encounter with Trump—a real estate developer at the time—escalated into a violent attack, with Trump forcibly penetrating her without consent. The jury rejected the rape claim under New York's narrow legal definition but held Trump liable for sexual abuse and forcible touching, awarding Carroll $2 million in compensatory damages, $3 million in punitive damages, and additional sums for defamation stemming from Trump's 2019 denials.
Trump's denial came swiftly after Carroll's allegations surfaced in a June 2019 excerpt from her book, What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal. Speaking to reporters at the White House, the then-president claimed he had never met Carroll, called her story a "hoax," and suggested she fabricated it to sell books—remarks that formed the basis of her defamation suit. He further dismissed her as "not my type," a comment that amplified the personal sting of the accusation. Carroll's lawsuit, filed in November 2019 under New York's Adult Survivors Act, capitalized on a one-year window allowing civil claims for long-ago sexual assaults, bypassing the statute of limitations.
The trial, presided over by U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, drew intense scrutiny for its evidentiary rulings. Trump's legal team argued that Kaplan erred by admitting testimony from two other women—Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff—who alleged separate sexual assaults by Trump in the 1970s and 2000s, respectively. These accounts, they contended, constituted improper "propensity evidence" under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 415, which allow such testimony in sexual misconduct cases but should be narrowly applied. Additionally, the jury viewed the infamous 2005 Access Hollywood tape, where Trump boasted to Billy Bush about grabbing women "by the pussy" without consent, a statement Kaplan deemed relevant to motive and pattern.
In the Supreme Court petition, Trump's attorneys, led by Justin D. Smith, doubled down on these claims, asserting that Kaplan "warped federal evidence rules to bolster Carroll’s implausible, unsubstantiated assertions." They highlighted the absence of contemporaneous evidence: "There were no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation," the filing states. "Instead, Carroll waited more than 20 years to falsely accuse Donald Trump, who she politically opposes, until after he became the 45th president, when she could maximize political injury to him and profit for herself." The petition argues this creates a circuit split with other appeals courts on evidentiary admissibility, a key factor for Supreme Court review.
The case's appellate history has been a gauntlet for Trump. In December 2024, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict, finding no abuse of discretion by Kaplan and affirming the jury's credibility assessments. Trump sought an en banc rehearing by the full 2nd Circuit in January 2025, which was denied in June 2025 by an 8-2 vote. Undeterred, his team sought an extension from the Supreme Court in late August, culminating in Monday's filing. As of Tuesday, the petition has not been docketed publicly, and justices typically decide within months whether to grant certiorari—reviewing fewer than 2% of petitions annually.
This is not the only Carroll-related litigation before the courts. A second lawsuit, filed in November 2022, addressed Trump's repeated defamatory statements in 2022, including a Truth Social post during the first trial: "I have no idea who this woman is. This is a complete con job." A January 2024 jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million—$18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive—deeming the remarks "egregious" and malicious. The 2nd Circuit affirmed this in September 2025, rejecting Trump's presidential immunity claims under the Supreme Court's July 2024 Trump v. United States ruling, which grants broad protection for "official acts." The panel noted Trump had waived immunity by litigating on the merits and that his statements were "unofficial" personal attacks.
Trump has since petitioned the full 2nd Circuit for rehearing en banc on the $83.3 million award, with the Justice Department filing an amicus brief urging review of whether immunity can be waived for "civil damages liability predicated on official acts." Carroll's response is due soon, potentially paving the way for another Supreme Court petition. Combined, the judgments total $88.3 million, which Trump has escrowed pending appeals.
The cases have broader implications amid Trump's return to the White House. Legal experts like Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond highlight the punitive damages' role in deterring future defamation, signaling that even presidents face accountability for personal conduct. Over two dozen women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct since the 1970s, though Carroll's verdicts are the only ones to yield financial liability. Trump's team frames the suits as "Democrat-funded witch hunts" and "liberal lawfare," tying them to his narrative of political persecution.
Carroll, now 81, has remained resolute. Her attorney, Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge), stated in September that the cases present no meritorious issues for Supreme Court review. Carroll herself, honored at events like Equality Now's 2025 gala, has described the verdicts as validation for survivors. As the petitions advance, they could test the conservative Supreme Court's appetite for revisiting #MeToo-era precedents, especially with three Trump appointees on the bench.
Whether the justices grant review remains speculative, but the stakes extend beyond one case. In an era of polarized politics, the Carroll litigation underscores tensions between free speech, accountability, and power. Trump recently notched a win in August when a New York appeals court vacated a $454 million civil fraud penalty against him, hinting at appellate fortunes turning. For Carroll, collection hinges on finalpr finality; for Trump, reversal could bolster his image as a victim of judicial overreach.
As filings pile up, observers anticipate oral arguments—if granted—could unfold in 2026, coinciding with midterm election cycles. The White House has not commented on the petition, but Trump's Truth Social posts continue to decry the cases as "hoaxes." Carroll's team, meanwhile, prepares for what Kaplan called "the end to the appellate process so that justice will finally be done."
This saga, spanning nearly three decades from the alleged assault to today's appeals, reflects evolving norms on sexual misconduct allegations. It began in anonymity but exploded into public view, forcing reckonings on consent, truth, and consequence. As the Supreme Court weighs intervention, the nation watches: Will it affirm a jury's word, or rewrite the rules for holding the powerful to account?
