The Supreme Court denied President Donald Trump's last-ditch request to reconsider his appeal of the $5 million E. Jean Carroll civil judgment, a one-sentence order that closes the book on the case while a far larger verdict still looms.
The Court issued its order Monday without comment or any noted dissents, rejecting Trump's rehearing petition after it had already declined his initial appeal in June. Rehearings at the Supreme Court are virtually never granted. Court rules limit them to situations where "substantial intervening circumstances" have occurred, a high bar Trump could not clear.
Trump has already paid the judgment. The New York Post reported the total came to $5.63 million, including interest, transferred after the Court's first refusal in June.
Roberta Kaplan, Carroll's attorney, issued a statement following Monday's order. Kaplan said:
"We are pleased that the United States Supreme Court has declined again to hear this case. As a result, the jury's unanimous verdict that Donald Trump sexually assaulted and then defamed E. Jean Carroll is now final and cannot be challenged in any court."
A note of precision matters here. Kaplan's statement uses the phrase "sexually assaulted," but the underlying finding was a civil jury verdict, not a criminal conviction. The jury in the first case found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation under civil standards of proof and awarded Carroll $5 million in damages.
Carroll alleged that Trump assaulted her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the early 1990s. Trump has repeatedly denied the allegation.
When the Court first refused to hear the appeal in June, Trump pushed back publicly. "I will continue the fight against this Weaponization and Lawfare Case against me, including the ridiculous claim of Defamation, with all of my power and strength," the Washington Examiner reported him saying at the time.
Monday's order strips away the last available avenue for challenging the $5 million verdict. No further appeal exists.
The $5 million case is not the only Carroll lawsuit Trump faces. A separate jury awarded Carroll $83 million in a second defamation case in 2024, before the presidential election. That case involves different statements Trump made about Carroll, and it remains on a slower timeline.
Trump has taken the $83 million judgment to the Supreme Court as well. A ruling on whether the justices will hear that appeal is not expected until October at the earliest.
In both cases, Trump's legal team tried multiple strategies to escape liability. ABC News reported that Trump tried unsuccessfully to substitute the United States as a defendant and to raise a claim of presidential immunity. Neither argument gained traction.
The Department of Justice has reportedly explored invoking the Westfall Act, a 1988 federal law that allows the government to step in as defendant when a lawsuit targets actions a federal employee took within the scope of their job. Whether DOJ has formally filed such a motion in the second case, or merely signaled intent, remains unclear from available court filings.
The Westfall Act argument faces an obvious obstacle: Carroll's allegations concern conduct that predates Trump's presidency by decades. Connecting a dressing-room encounter in the early 1990s to the "scope" of presidential duties would require creative lawyering, to put it mildly.
The rehearing denial adds to a string of Supreme Court setbacks for Trump across multiple legal fronts. The Court has now twice rejected his efforts to overturn the Carroll verdict alone. The administration has also absorbed major rulings in other areas, including a decision that struck down certain tariff authorities and forced billions in refunds.
None of these losses changes the political reality that Trump remains a sitting president with broad executive authority. But the Carroll cases illustrate a persistent legal exposure that predates his return to office, civil liability rooted in personal conduct, not policy disputes.
The $83 million case now becomes the main event. If the Supreme Court declines that appeal too, Trump would face a combined judgment approaching $89 million from a single plaintiff over statements he made denying her accusations.
For a president who built his political brand on fighting back against what he calls lawfare, the Carroll saga is a reminder that civil courts operate on their own schedule, and their own rules. The question now is whether the justices will treat the second, far larger verdict any differently than they treated the first.
Monday's one-sentence order answered that question for the $5 million case. No comment. No dissent. Case closed. The bigger bill is still outstanding.
