Supreme Court Declines Trump's Appeal, Leaving E. Jean Carroll's $5 Million Verdict Intact

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear President Donald Trump's appeal seeking to overturn a $5 million civil judgment awarded to writer and former advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, bringing another chapter of the long-running legal battle to a close. By refusing to take up the case, the nation's highest court leaves intact a 2023 jury verdict that found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and later defaming her through public statements denying her allegations and attacking her credibility. As is customary in most cases it declines to review, the Supreme Court did not provide an explanation for its decision.

The case stems from allegations that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll in a dressing room at the luxury department store Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan during the mid-1990s. Carroll publicly disclosed her allegations in 2019 in an excerpt from her memoir, prompting Trump to deny the accusation and claim that he had never met her, despite photographs showing the two together at social events years earlier. Carroll subsequently filed a defamation lawsuit, arguing that Trump's statements damaged her reputation and portrayed her as dishonest. Later, after New York enacted the Adult Survivors Act, a law that temporarily allowed victims of sexual abuse to file civil claims even if the statute of limitations had expired. Carroll filed a separate lawsuit alleging sexual abuse and battery.

In May 2023, a federal jury in New York concluded that Trump was liable for sexually abusing Carroll and for defaming her after she came forward with her allegations. The jury awarded Carroll approximately $5 million in damages, including compensation for emotional harm and reputational damage.

Trump has consistently denied the allegations and has repeatedly characterized the case as politically motivated. His attorneys argued that the trial contained legal errors and that certain evidence should not have been presented to jurors. Those arguments were rejected by lower courts, leading Trump's legal team to ask the Supreme Court to intervene. The justices' decision not to hear the appeal effectively ends Trump's effort to overturn the $5 million judgment. Although the ruling does not involve criminal charges or a criminal conviction, it does leave standing the findings reached by the jury and upheld by federal appellate courts.

The Supreme Court's decision represents another legal setback for Trump, who has faced multiple civil and criminal cases in recent years while remaining one of the most influential figures in American politics. The Carroll case, however, has been among the most closely watched because of its allegations of sexual misconduct and because it involved statements made by a former and current president of the United States.

The legal battle between Trump and Carroll is not entirely over. In January 2024, a separate jury awarded Carroll an additional $83.3 million in damages in another defamation case after determining that Trump continued to make defamatory statements about her even after the first verdict. That judgment remains under appeal, and legal experts expect Trump's attorneys to continue challenging the award through the federal court system. Whether the Supreme Court ultimately agrees to hear that separate appeal remains unknown. For now, however, the Court's refusal to review the $5 million case leaves one fact clear: the original judgment in Carroll's favor stands.

Beyond the financial implications, the case has become a significant part of Trump's legal and political legacy. Supporters continue to argue that the lawsuits were politically motivated, while critics view the verdicts as an example of the judicial system holding a powerful public figure accountable.

With the Supreme Court declining to intervene, the first Carroll verdict is now effectively settled, closing one chapter in a case that has captured national attention and will likely remain part of the broader conversation about accountability, power, and the lasting consequences of public accusations and legal findings. Leaving hope that justice can be served.

@Janie

@alvarezjanie

Copyright © 2026 Janie Alvarez for FRONTeras.

All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Sharing the original posts or links from FRONTeras on social media is allowed and appreciated.

FRONTeras is an independent publication protected by the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Our reporting and commentary draw from documented facts, public records, court filings, and reliable news sources. Opinions expressed in editorials are solely those of the author and do not constitute legal advice, divine truth, or the official position of FRONTeras. All articles, whether news, satirical, or commentary, are produced according to journalistic standards of accuracy, fairness, and independence. While errors in reporting are possible, they will be corrected promptly once verified with credible sources. Critiques are grounded in evidence, not malice. Attempts to censor, intimidate, or punish the press will not alter the facts we publish. FRONTeras will continue to report without fear or favor.