US Supreme Court Declines to Hear Trump's Appeal of $5 Million Verdict

The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear former President Donald Trump's appeal of a $5 million jury verdict in the sexual abuse and defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll. This decision, announced without noted dissent, effectively ends Trump's efforts to overturn the May 2023 verdict, which found him liable for sexually abusing Carroll in 1996 and defaming her in 2022. The denial of certiorari leaves intact the Second Circuit's affirmation of the judgment, reinforcing the lower court's evidentiary rulings regarding the admissibility of 'other acts' evidence and bringing finality to this aspect of the protracted litigation.

The United States Supreme Court recently announced its refusal to grant certiorari in *Trump v. Carroll*, thereby declining to review the $5 million jury verdict against former President Donald Trump for sexual abuse and defamation. This decision marks a significant juncture in the high-profile legal battle between Trump and journalist E. Jean Carroll, effectively cementing the judgment rendered by a federal jury in New York. The Supreme Court's denial of the petition for review, a common outcome given its discretionary appellate jurisdiction, means the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' affirmation of the verdict stands as the final word on this particular appeal.

Trump had sought to challenge the verdict primarily on grounds related to the admissibility of certain evidence during the trial, including testimony from other women alleging similar conduct and the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape. However, the Supreme Court's decision not to intervene underscores the high bar for obtaining review by the nation's highest court, particularly when the asserted errors largely concern the application of established evidentiary rules rather than novel questions of federal law or inter-circuit conflicts. For legal practitioners, this outcome provides crucial insights into the finality of lower court judgments and the stringent criteria governing Supreme Court review.

The immediate consequence of this denial is the finality of the $5 million award to E. Jean Carroll, bringing a measure of closure to the 2022 lawsuit. This development also has broader implications for litigation involving similar claims, particularly concerning the use of character evidence and prior bad acts in civil sexual assault cases, and highlights the enduring power of jury verdicts affirmed by appellate courts.

The genesis of this litigation dates back to 1996, when E. Jean Carroll alleged that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at a Manhattan department store. Carroll publicly disclosed her allegations in 2019, leading to a series of denials and allegedly defamatory statements by Trump. In 2022, Carroll filed a lawsuit against Trump in federal court in New York, leveraging the newly enacted New York Adult Survivors Act, which provided a one-year window for individuals to bring civil claims for sexual assault that would otherwise be time-barred.

The case proceeded to trial, and in May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and for defaming her through his 2022 statements. The jury awarded Carroll $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. Trump subsequently appealed this verdict to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed the district court's judgment in 2024. In his petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, Trump contended that the trial court erred by allowing the introduction of "highly inflammatory" evidence, specifically testimony from other women who had accused him of sexual assault and the 2005 "Access Hollywood" tape.

This evidentiary dispute centered on Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 404(b), which generally prohibits the admission of "other crimes, wrongs, or acts" to prove a person's character in order to show action in conformity therewith. However, the Rules also provide specific provisions for sexual assault cases, namely Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 415, which permit the admission of evidence of a defendant's other sexual assault offenses in cases where the defendant is accused of a sexual assault. Carroll, in her opposition brief, argued that even if there were any error in admitting the evidence, it was harmless given the strength of her overall case. The Supreme Court's review process for certiorari is highly discretionary, guided by Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, which outlines "compelling reasons" for granting review, typically involving conflicts among circuit courts or important unsettled questions of federal law.

The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in *Trump v. Carroll* signifies a definitive end to Trump's direct appellate challenges against the $5 million verdict. This action, or rather inaction, by the Court means that the Second Circuit's decision, which upheld the trial court's judgment, remains undisturbed and binding. The Court's decision not to intervene is not a ruling on the merits of Trump's specific arguments regarding evidentiary errors, but rather a determination that the case did not present the "compelling reasons" typically required for the Court to exercise its discretionary review under Supreme Court Rule 10.

Trump's primary contention revolved around the admissibility of "other acts" evidence, specifically the testimony of other accusers and the "Access Hollywood" tape. While Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) generally bars character evidence to prove conduct, Rules 413 and 415 create specific exceptions for civil and criminal sexual assault cases, allowing evidence of a defendant's other sexual assaults or child molestation offenses. The Second Circuit, in affirming the verdict, found that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, deeming the testimony and recording admissible under these rules. This suggests that the lower courts' application of these specific rules, designed to address the unique challenges of proving sexual assault, was considered sound or at least not so egregious as to warrant Supreme Court intervention.

The Supreme Court rarely grants certiorari for cases that primarily involve the alleged misapplication of properly stated rules of law or erroneous factual findings, as opposed to conflicts between federal appellate courts or significant unsettled questions of federal law. The absence of a noted dissent from the denial further indicates that a sufficient number of justices did not find the issues presented by Trump to meet the high threshold for review. The jury's finding of liability for defamation also stands, based on New York law, which requires a false and defamatory statement, publication to a third party, and injury, unless the statement constitutes defamation *per se*. The jury's verdict on both sexual abuse and defamation, affirmed by the Second Circuit, now carries the full weight of judicial finality.

The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in *Trump v. Carroll* definitively concludes the appellate process for the $5 million jury verdict, making the judgment final and enforceable. E. Jean Carroll's legal team has already moved to expedite the release of the funds, which Trump was required to deposit into a court-controlled account following the 2023 verdict. This outcome underscores the principle that, absent extraordinary circumstances, the Supreme Court will not re-adjudicate factual disputes or review every alleged error in the application of evidentiary rules by lower courts.

For legal practitioners, this case serves as a critical reminder of the robust nature of Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 415 in sexual assault litigation, allowing for the admission of "other acts" evidence to demonstrate a pattern of conduct. It highlights the challenges in overturning such evidentiary rulings on appeal, particularly at the Supreme Court level, where the focus is on broader legal principles rather than case-specific factual or procedural grievances. Attorneys handling similar civil cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct should be prepared for the potential admissibility of such evidence and its significant impact on jury deliberations. While this specific appeal is concluded, it is important to note that a separate $83.3 million defamation judgment against Trump, stemming from statements made in 2019, remains under appeal, with Trump also indicating an intent to seek Supreme Court review on grounds of presidential immunity. This ongoing litigation suggests that the legal battles between Trump and Carroll are not entirely over, even as this chapter closes.