Well, folks, it looks like even the highest courts aren’t handing out free passes to President Donald Trump in his ongoing legal battle with writer E. Jean Carroll.
According to CNBC, Trump lost his bid on Friday to have the full bench of the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New York rehear his challenge to a 2023 civil jury verdict that found him liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the mid-1990s and defaming her after she went public with her claims.
Let’s rewind to the beginning of this legal tussle. Carroll first accused Trump in 2019 of assaulting her decades earlier in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in Manhattan, a claim Trump denied in ways the courts later deemed defamatory. That set the stage for two separate lawsuits—one in 2019 over his initial comments and another in 2022 for battery and defamation after New York eased its statute of limitations for such claims.
The 2023 verdict from a Manhattan federal jury hit Trump with a $5 million damages award to Carroll, a decision a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit upheld six months before Friday’s denial of a full court rehearing. It’s a tough pill to swallow for a man who’s built a brand on winning.
Adding salt to the wound, two Trump-appointed judges on the 2nd Circuit, Steven Menashi, and Michael Park dissented from the refusal to rehear the case en banc. Judge Menashi argued the panel’s ruling “sanctioned striking departures” from legal norms, particularly criticizing the trial judge, Lewis Kaplan, for allowing outdated testimony about an alleged incident from 45 years ago. Sounds like even Trump’s own picks on the bench think the process stinks of overreach.
But the majority wasn’t buying it. Four other judges shot back, noting that en banc reviews are reserved for exceptional cases, and accused the dissent of ignoring judicial “restraint.” Judges Denny Chin and Susan Carney doubled down, stating the dissent failed to justify why any supposed error deserved a full court do-over.
Menashi’s dissent didn’t hold back, pointing out that Judge Kaplan’s rulings allowed “stale witness testimony” from Jessica Leeds, who claimed Trump grabbed her on an airplane decades ago. If you’re skeptical of progressive legal tactics, this smells like stacking the deck with emotional narratives over hard evidence.
Carroll, meanwhile, has racked up victories in both her lawsuits against Trump. The first, tied to his 2019 remarks, ended with a January 2024 verdict awarding her a staggering $83.3 million for defamation, with Trump’s appeal of that decision set for oral arguments on June 24. Turns out, denying claims in the public square can cost more than just political capital.
On Wednesday, the appeals court also rejected Trump’s request to delay those June 24 arguments until it decided whether the U.S. government can step in as defendant due to his presidential status. No breaks for the commander-in-chief here, it seems.
Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, didn’t hide her satisfaction with Friday’s ruling, saying, “E. Jean Carroll is very pleased.” She added that Trump’s repeated challenges to two jury findings have flopped, and he remains liable for assault and defamation. Hard to argue with a scoreboard that clear, even if you question the game’s rules.
Trump’s legal team, predictably, isn’t waving the white flag. A spokesman declared the “Democrat-funded Carroll Hoax” will be appealed further while insisting Trump is focused on his mission to “Make America Great Again.” Bold words, but legal battles aren’t won on campaign slogans.
There’s still a chance Trump could take this fight to the Supreme Court, though they’re under no obligation to hear it. For now, the 2nd Circuit’s refusal to reconsider the $5 million verdict stands as another thorn in his side.
Looking at the broader picture, Carroll’s cases highlight how past actions can haunt even the most powerful figures when laws shift to allow old claims to resurface.
For conservatives wary of activist courts, this feels like a warning shot—decades-old allegations can be weaponized if the legal winds blow the right way.
Yet, there’s a flip side worth noting: accountability matters and juries have twice found Trump’s denials crossed into defamation. While the process raises eyebrows among those skeptical of judicial overreach, the verdicts send a message that words and actions carry weight, no matter who you are.
