President Donald Trump is taking his fight against a $5 million verdict to the highest court in the land, challenging a ruling that branded him liable for sexual abuse and defamation against former Elle columnist E. Jean Carroll.
According to Fox News, Trump’s legal team has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision, arguing that the trial was tainted by flawed evidentiary rulings. They claim the lower courts allowed inflammatory and prejudicial material to sway the outcome.
This case stems from Carroll’s allegations, first publicized in her 2019 book, that Trump assaulted her in a New York department store dressing room decades ago. Trump has steadfastly rejected the claim, insisting he never even met her and accusing her of fabricating the story for book sales.
Trump’s attorneys have pointed to what they call a pattern of judicial missteps, arguing that Judge Lewis A. Kaplan misapplied federal evidence rules to favor Carroll. They contend the trial relied on “highly inflammatory propensity evidence” that should never have been admitted.
The legal filing emphasizes the lack of concrete proof, stating, “No physical or DNA evidence corroborates Carroll’s story. There were no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation.”
That absence of hard evidence raises serious questions about the foundation of the verdict. If a case can hinge on unverified claims, what stops the legal system from becoming a weapon for personal or political vendettas?
Carroll’s lawsuits didn’t stop at the assault allegation; she also pursued Trump for defamation after his public denials and sharp criticisms. His statements, calling her story a fabrication, led to two separate defamation suits, with the first resulting in the $5 million judgment now under Supreme Court appeal.
A second defamation trial in 2024 awarded Carroll an additional $83.3 million, a sum the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld as “fair and reasonable” in September 2025. Trump’s team has also requested a full appellate review of that staggering amount, signaling no retreat in this legal showdown.
Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, remains confident, declaring, “We do not believe that President Trump will be able to present any legal issues in the Carroll cases that merit review by the United States Supreme Court.” Such certainty might comfort some, but it sidesteps the broader concern of whether the judiciary is overreaching into matters of personal dispute under the guise of justice.
Trump’s legal journey has been uphill, with a three-judge panel affirming the $5 million verdict in December 2024 and the 2nd Circuit denying a full court review in June 2025. His team had signaled their intent to escalate to the Supreme Court as early as September 2025, showing a determination to fight every step.
A spokesperson for Trump framed the appeal as resistance to broader forces, stating, “The American People stand with President Trump as they demand an immediate end to all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes.” While the rhetoric is heated, it taps into a real frustration among many who see these cases as part of a relentless campaign to undermine Trump’s political standing.
The fact that Trump has paid the $5 million into escrow pending appeal shows he’s playing by the rules, even as he contests them. Yet one wonders if the escalating penalties, now totaling over $88 million across both verdicts, are less about justice and more about sending a message to silence dissent.
This legal saga unfolds against the backdrop of Trump’s ongoing political campaign, one of many battles he faces in and out of court. It’s hard to ignore how these cases seem timed to keep him on the defensive, distracting from policy debates that should dominate public discourse.
For those skeptical of progressive legal strategies, this feels like lawfare dressed up as accountability. The Supreme Court’s decision to take or reject this case could set a precedent on whether personal allegations, absent hard proof, can wield such financial and reputational power.
Ultimately, the nation watches as the highest court weighs whether to step in, potentially reshaping how far the judiciary can go in adjudicating decades-old claims. Whatever the outcome, this dispute underscores a deeper divide over fairness, evidence, and the intersection of law with political life.
