ANALYSIS: Carroll vs. Trump — the Supreme Court delays a $5 million verdict for the 15th time

A number that says everything

Fifteen. Fifteen times since February 2026, the United States Supreme Court has pulled Donald Trump's appeal against the $5 million verdict from its calendar — the verdict rendered by a New York jury in the E. Jean Carroll case, which found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation against the American columnist. The most recent removal was on June 23, 2026, with no public explanation from the Court.

This is not a procedural accident. It is not an overloaded schedule either. It is a rhythm that, through sheer repetition, traces a trajectory even the most cautious observers can no longer ignore. While the Supreme Court delays, Trump accumulates interest on more than $100 million in court-ordered debt to Carroll — and that interest takes no breaks.

The background of the case in three acts

It begins in the 1990s, in a dressing room at a Manhattan department store. E. Jean Carroll claims Trump sexually assaulted her there. He has always denied it. In 2022, a new New York State law allowing victims of past assaults to pursue civil claims opens the door to a lawsuit. In 2023, a federal jury delivers a first verdict: $5 million for sexual abuse and defamation. A second jury later adds $83.3 million in aggravated defamation damages.

In 2024, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the first verdict. In June 2025, Trump fails to secure a full-court rehearing. He then turns to the Supreme Court — and that is where the marathon of delays begins.

I won't pretend to know what happens behind the closed doors of the White Marble in Washington. But fifteen postponements of the same case, without explanation, without an announced date — that looks less like judicial prudence and more like institutional avoidance. And if it is intentional, it is a surrender of justice to politics.

What standard procedure says

At the Supreme Court, a case can be "rescheduled" — removed and then relisted for the justices' private conferences — for various reasons: waiting for a complete record, deliberating over a related petition, or simply managing workload. The Court does not typically comment on these decisions, which makes them opaque by nature.

For comparison, a case concerning federal authority on Native American reservations was rescheduled 17 times last year — showing that multiple continuances are not, in themselves, extraordinary. But the identity of the petitioner — in this instance the sitting president of the United States — adds a political dimension that formal procedures cannot remove.

The concrete benefit to Trump

Every week of delay is a week Trump does not have to pay. Legal interest accumulates on both combined verdicts, bringing the total estimated debt to more than $100 million according to calculations published in June 2026. If the Court ultimately decides to hear both Carroll cases together — Trump's team announced on June 2, 2026 its intention to bring the $83.3 million verdict before the Supreme Court — a final ruling could be pushed to fall 2026 or beyond.

For Carroll, whose attorneys have confirmed she has received nothing despite the verdicts, this timeline is not a procedural abstraction. It is a concrete, daily injustice.

One can defend any defendant's right to exhaust all appeals. But there is something deeply shocking about a billionaire president using every institutional lever to never pay what twelve of his peers on a jury decided he owed. This is not justice — it is obstruction dressed up in procedure.

Adding up the verdicts and interest

The first verdict — $5 million — dates to May 2023. The second — $83.3 million — to January 2024. More than two years of non-payment on such substantial sums generates significant legal interest. Calculations published in spring 2026 estimate that the total debt, including interest, now exceeds $100 million. Trump, whose personal fortune is valued in the billions, theoretically has the means to pay — but uses the court system as a delay mechanism.

The strategy is not new. Trump used court appeals and procedural delays for decades in his commercial disputes to financially exhaust less well-resourced opponents. Applying the same logic to a victim of sexual abuse is another form of the same pressure.

Carroll up against the money wall

E. Jean Carroll's attorneys received outside funding, notably from Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, which enabled them to maintain judicial pressure despite the considerable litigation costs. That funding is precisely at the center of the criminal investigation opened by Trump's DOJ in June 2026 — an investigation critics describe as institutional retaliation.

Without this financial support, the legal battle might have run out of steam long before reaching this point. Which raises a deeper question: what happens when the adversary commands virtually unlimited resources — including the resources of the State?

Things must be called by their name: using the machinery of the State to criminally investigate a woman who defeated you before two separate juries is a form of institutional retaliation. That is precisely what dictatorships do — and what democracies are supposed to prevent through their checks and balances.

"Liberal Lawfare" — the defense by rhetoric

In January 2026, Trump's lawyers filed their written arguments with the Supreme Court. Their central line: the accusations are "decades-old, unfounded allegations," and the case amounts to "Liberal Lawfare" — judicially driven political warfare. They contest, notably, the admissibility of testimony from two other women claiming to have experienced similar behavior from Trump, as well as the Access Hollywood tape played during trial.

On the other side, Carroll's attorneys argued that federal judge Lewis Kaplan correctly managed the evidence, and that the Supreme Court had no valid reason to interfere with a verdict confirmed twice on appeal. The 2024 presidential immunity ruling does not apply, they argue, because the acts attributed to Trump predate his presidency.

The Access Hollywood tape and evidence law

Judge Kaplan had justified admitting the Access Hollywood tape — in which Trump boasts about being able to grab women by their genitals — on the grounds that it was relevant to establishing the likelihood of non-consensual contact. The 2nd Circuit, in its unanimous 2024 ruling, validated that reasoning.

Trump and his team see the admission as anti-Trump bias. Legal observers note that evidence rules do permit the introduction of similar past conduct in civil sexual assault cases. The law is clear; what is contested is the interpretation of its application to the specific facts.

The "Liberal Lawfare" argument is a rhetorical sleight of hand worth dismantling. Twelve jurors, selected through standard procedures, heard the evidence and decided. The American judicial machine — imperfect but real — worked. Contesting the outcome by screaming about conspiracy is a denial of the jury itself — and an attack on the very foundations of American democracy.

A 6-3 Court walking on eggshells

The current Supreme Court, with its 6-to-3 conservative majority, finds itself in a delicate position on cases directly involving Trump. Three of the six conservative justices — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — were appointed by Trump himself. A clear rejection of his appeal would expose them to accusations of betrayal within the MAGA circle. An acceptance would expose them to accusations of blatant partiality.

Endlessly rescheduling may be, cynically, the path of least resistance: avoid ruling, let time pass, hope other events absorb attention. This is not jurisprudence — it is judicial politics.

The precedent and the institution

Each additional delay erodes the Supreme Court's credibility as an impartial arbiter. If the highest institution in the American judicial system appears unable — or unwilling — to handle a case because the appellant is the sitting president, what remains of the principle of equality before the law? The message sent to the rest of the world is troubling: in Trump's America II, justice can be put on indefinite hold by political power.

Women's rights organizations and lawyers' associations follow this case with particular attention. For them, it is not only about Carroll and Trump — it is about whether American courts can still protect ordinary plaintiffs against extraordinarily powerful defendants.

I watch this Supreme Court and wonder what it is waiting for. Five million dollars awarded to a victim of sexual abuse by two successive judicial bodies — and the court of last resort says nothing, reschedules, delays, stays silent. History will judge this institutional paralysis harshly.

Defamation taken to the extreme

The second trial, concluded in January 2024, focused exclusively on defamation: Trump had publicly declared Carroll was lying, that she was "not his type," and continued to discredit her after a first conviction. The jury determined that these repeated attacks warranted an exceptional sanction: $83.3 million, a large share of it punitive damages.

The 2nd Circuit upheld that amount in 2025, calling the facts "extraordinary and outrageous." Trump announced on June 2, 2026 his intention to bring this second verdict before the Supreme Court, asking that both Carroll cases be heard together — a strategy that, if successful, will push any prospect of payment even further back.

Consolidation strategy: wait until fall 2026?

If the Supreme Court agrees to consolidate the two Carroll cases, it will likely not rule before fall 2026, or even the start of the 2026–2027 term. That scenario means Carroll will have to wait at least six more months — meaning more than three years after the first verdict — to find out whether the Court will even agree to examine her case.

In the interim, interest continues to accumulate, yet Carroll has not seen a single dollar. Her attorneys have maintained financial guarantees imposed on Trump during the appeals process, but those guarantees are not cash paid to the victim — they are contingent on the final outcome of the appeals.

Eighty-three million dollars in punitive damages. A jury sent as powerful a signal as American civil justice can send. And yet, in 2026, the man has still paid nothing. He leads the country. And the Supreme Court postpones for the fifteenth time. If this is not an institutional crisis, I do not know what is.

The legal interest calculation

In the United States, unpaid civil verdicts generate legal interest calculated at federal or state rates depending on the jurisdiction. With two combined verdicts exceeding $88 million at the time they were issued, and more than two years of accrual on the first and more than one year on the second, estimates published in spring 2026 place Trump's total potential debt at over $100 million.

One must, however, distinguish between what Trump theoretically owes and what can be enforced concretely. So long as appeals are pending and bonds are maintained, enforcement of the judgment is suspended. This appeal-protection mechanism is legitimate in itself — but its repeated use in a case marked by so many delays raises serious questions.

The bonds and guarantees maintained

Under the appeals process, Trump was required to post bonds or provide sufficient guarantees to cover the contested amounts. Surety companies were involved, generating their own costs and complications. Maintaining these guarantees over such an extended period represents a real cost — but far less than an immediate payment with interest would entail.

For financial observers, this strategy is consistent with Trump's historical modus operandi in litigation: use every available lever to delay, and hope for a favorable outcome or an opponent worn down to exhaustion. The difference this time: the opponent is financially supported, determined, and her case has become a political symbol far beyond its personal stakes.

There is something fundamentally obscene about the spectacle of a billionaire-president using the mechanisms of justice to never be held accountable to a woman whom a jury of his peers found he had abused. It is money and power against justice. And for now, money and power are winning.

An investigation in service of a personal vendetta

In June 2026, Trump's Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation against E. Jean Carroll, targeting an alleged false statement made during a 2022 deposition. Carroll had stated she had not received outside financial support for her lawsuit. Prosecutors allege that assistance from Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, contradicts that statement. The 2nd Circuit had previously rejected similar allegations in the civil proceedings.

This investigation arrives just days after Trump announced his intention to bring the second Carroll verdict before the Supreme Court. The timing has not gone unnoticed: opening a criminal proceeding against a plaintiff who defeated you twice before a jury means using the resources of the State for personal ends — a line that healthy democracies do not normally cross.

Carroll's response and her attorneys

Carroll and her legal team rejected this investigation as an intimidation attempt. Her attorneys noted that the alleged perjury about funding is a matter that falls, at most, under civil disclosure rules — not a federal criminal proceeding. In American law, criminal perjury charges arising from civil depositions are extremely rare — and even rarer when they target a plaintiff whose adversary controls the justice apparatus.

For defenders of women's rights, this investigation sends a chilling message to any potential victim: taking a powerful man to court may expose you to state retaliation. It is a deterrent effect that constitutional lawyers call a chilling effect — and it is particularly toxic for the integrity of the judicial system.

Opening a criminal investigation against a woman who sued you and won — while you are president — is one of the rawest forms of abuse of power I have witnessed in a Western democracy in a long time. If this is not weaponization of justice, the word means nothing.

What the 15th time truly means

Fifteen postponements. No date set. No explanation. Donald Trump remains in office, consolidates his power, and the Carroll case hangs in a judicial limbo as a symbol of everything wrong with the relationship between executive and judicial power in the United States in 2026. This is not an ending. It is a waiting game — and every day that passes is a de facto victory for the man who waits to pay.

Carroll's perseverance and what it represents

E. Jean Carroll, 80 years old, has not given up. She keeps fighting, with her lawyers, with her supporters, against an adversary commanding incomparably greater institutional and financial resources. Her battle is no longer hers alone — it has become that of all women seeking justice against powerful men who use time as a weapon. The Supreme Court will eventually have to rule. When? No one knows. But Carroll is waiting.

If the Supreme Court ultimately refuses to hear these verdicts, or invalidates them for purely political reasons, that will be one of the darkest days in American justice. But if it upholds them, it will be proof that the system still holds. I prefer to believe it holds. I reserve the right to be disappointed.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.