Well, folks, the gavel has slammed down hard on President Donald Trump as a federal appeals court refused to budge on a $5 million judgment for sexually abusing and defaming advice columnist E. Jean Carroll.
In a nutshell, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with an 8-2 vote on Friday, shot down Trump’s bid for a full court rehearing of a 2023 jury verdict that found him liable for an assault in a Manhattan department store back in the mid-1990s and for defamatory remarks made in October 2022, the Associated Press reported.
Let’s rewind to spring 1996, when Carroll testified that a chance meeting with Trump at a high-end store turned dark after they stepped into a dressing room. She described a violent encounter, a claim Trump has staunchly denied. This set the stage for a legal battle that’s been anything but quiet.
Fast forward to 2023, when a jury sided with Carroll, pinning Trump with liability for sexual abuse and ordering him to pay $5 million in damages. Trump didn’t even show up for most of that trial, though he did briefly testify in a later defamation case. Talk about playing hard to get in the courtroom.
Then came Trump’s October 2022 comments, which the jury deemed defamatory, adding fuel to Carroll’s case. Trump challenged the trial rulings by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, arguing they were unfair, especially for allowing testimony from two other women alleging past abuse by him, claims he also denies. Seems like the court wasn’t buying what he was selling.
A three-judge panel already upheld the verdict in December, and now the full appeals court has followed suit with that 8-2 vote. Interestingly, four of the judges who rejected Trump’s rehearing request were appointed by President Joe Biden. Coincidence? You decide.
The two dissenting judges, both Trump appointees, weren’t shy about their disagreement. “The trial consisted of a series of indefensible evidentiary rulings,” they argued. Sounds like they think the deck was stacked from the get-go.
They went on to say the verdict relied on “impermissible character evidence” over solid facts. “No one can have any confidence” the jury would’ve ruled the same under fair rules, they added. That’s a sharp jab at a process they see as flawed.
On the flip side, the majority wasn’t having it. “Simply re-litigating a case is not an appropriate use” of this process, four Biden-appointed judges countered. They’re essentially telling Trump to take the loss and move on—easier said than done for a fighter like him.
Carroll’s camp is understandably over the moon. “E. Jean Carroll is very pleased with today’s decision,” said her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan. It’s a rare win against a figure as polarizing as Trump, and they’re savoring every bit of it.
Kaplan didn’t stop there, noting that despite Trump’s every effort to dodge accountability, “he remains liable for sexual assault and defamation.” That’s a bold reminder that even the highest profiles aren’t above the law. Turns out actions do have consequences, no matter how many appeals you file.
Meanwhile, a separate defamation trial tied to Trump’s 2019 comments after Carroll’s memoir accusations resulted in a whopping $83.3 million award to her. Judge Kaplan, who oversaw both trials, even told the second jury to accept the first’s finding of abuse. That’s a double whammy most wouldn’t wish on their worst enemy.
Trump’s legal team isn’t done yet, with arguments for an appeal on that second defamation award set for June 24. It’s another round in a seemingly endless bout, and you can bet they’ll come out swinging. But will it change the outcome? That’s anyone’s guess.
Through all this, Trump maintains his innocence, denying not just Carroll’s claims but those of the other two women whose testimonies were allowed in court. It’s a tough spot for a man who’s built a brand on never backing down. Yet the courts seem unmoved by charisma alone.
At the end of the day, this case raises big questions about fairness in high-profile trials and whether political appointments sway judicial outcomes. While conservatives might see this as another example of a system tilted against Trump by a progressive agenda, the rulings stand for now. It’s a bitter pill, but one that reminds us the legal arena spares no one, not even a former president.
