COMMENTARY: E. Jean Carroll — The Appeal Rejected 15 Times That Won't Let Trump Go

Introduction: Fifteen Times, and the Supreme Court Has Still Said Nothing

An Appeal Going Nowhere Since November 2025

Since November 10, 2025, Donald Trump has filed a petition for certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court to contest a jury verdict holding him liable for sexual assault and defamation against columnist E. Jean Carroll. That verdict dated from May 2023. It resulted in a $5 million judgment. President Trump wanted the nine Supreme Court justices to erase that ruling, the third appellate court having already refused to do so. Result, seven months later: the Supreme Court has still not formally discussed this appeal. It has been rescheduled fifteen times in a row, without ever explaining why.

This case is exceptional. According to an analysis by CNN published on June 22, 2026, only one other appeal has been rescheduled as many times during the current term. The U.S. Supreme Court is an institution that operates in near-total secrecy regarding its internal deliberations, but fifteen consecutive postponements without explanation do not go unnoticed by legal scholars. This deafening silence is itself a form of decision.

A Case That Grows Heavier While the Court Says Nothing

While the Supreme Court kept indefinitely deferring the appeal's examination, the Carroll v. Trump dossier continued to expand. A second jury, in January 2024, ordered Trump to pay an additional $83 million to Carroll for aggravated defamation. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that verdict in September 2025, then refused en banc reconsideration in April 2026. In total, including interest, Trump owes E. Jean Carroll more than $100 million. And the bill keeps running.

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice — the DOJ, under the direct control of the Trump government — launched a criminal investigation into Carroll herself in May 2026. The pretext: determining whether she had committed perjury during a 2022 deposition in which she claimed to be receiving no outside funding for her lawsuits. It subsequently emerged that billionaire Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn co-founder and prominent Democratic donor, had financed part of her legal costs through a Chicago-based nonprofit. This is not a coincidence. It is a strategy. And this strategy deserves cold-eyed examination, with all the honesty the situation demands.

The 2023 Verdict: What the Jury Really Decided

Sexual Assault and Defamation — Two Counts Upheld

In May 2023, a New York jury ruled that Donald Trump was civilly liable for sexual assault against E. Jean Carroll for an incident that occurred in the fitting room of Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan in the mid-1990s. The jury also upheld defamation: Trump, in an October 2022 post on Truth Social, had denied the facts, claiming Carroll had invented the story to sell her book. These two counts justified a $5 million judgment. Carroll had brought this civil action in 2022, taking advantage of a legislative window opened by New York State allowing sexual assault victims to file civil claims for historical incidents.

It is important to clarify this point precisely: the jury did not find sexual assault involving penetration as defined under New York criminal law. The jury upheld the finding of sexual assault, which nonetheless remains a serious and documented conclusion. Trump has always contested the facts. But contesting before a jury and losing is a legal reality that neither time nor repeated denials can erase.

The Second Trial: $83 Million for Systemic Defamation

The first trial — the Carroll I case from 2019 — concerned Trump's statements in which he denied knowing Carroll and claimed she was "not his type." That case, tried second, produced an even heavier verdict: $83.3 million in January 2024. The jury had taken into account the repeated, deliberate, and malicious nature of Trump's attacks on Carroll's credibility. The Second Circuit affirmed this verdict, describing it as reasonable given the extraordinary and serious facts of the case.

Trump sought to invoke presidential immunity in this second case, arguing his statements were made in the course of his official duties. The appellate judges rejected this argument, noting that Trump had raised this defense belatedly and that the Supreme Court's 2024 presidential immunity ruling did not apply to civil acts predating his presidency.

The Mechanics of the 15 Postponements: What the Court's Silence Reveals

Rescheduled — Not Relisted as Usual

There is a technical distinction that legal scholars emphasize persistently. When the Supreme Court examines a certiorari petition, it can relist it — that is, defer it to a future conference while discussing it. That is common. It happens often when justices are deliberating, when one is drafting a dissent on the denial, or when the case is connected to another pending matter. But the Carroll case is not in that category. It is rescheduled — which means it is not even formally discussed at the conference. It is removed from the agenda before the meeting.

The first time this occurred was on February 26, 2026, the day before a scheduled conference. The appeal was withdrawn without explanation. Since then, the scenario has repeated itself fourteen additional times. Law professor Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court specialist, formulated the most direct critique: "The oddity here is not just that the Court has rescheduled one of the Carroll cases 15 times, it's the absence of a compelling justification for having done so."

Two Explanations, Each Worse Than the Other

Vladeck identifies two possible explanations. The first: the Court is waiting for the second appeal — the one concerning the $83 million — to be formally filed, in order to examine both cases together. Trump indeed wrote to the Court on June 2, 2026 to inform it that he would file that second appeal within the following month, suggesting the two petitions be considered jointly. The problem, Vladeck notes, is that the two cases raise very different legal questions. Linking them together has no justification on the merits of the law.

The second explanation is more uncomfortable: the Court is granting President Trump preferential treatment, a form of institutional solicitude that would not have been extended to any other petitioner. Vladeck said as much clearly, noting that this "would be problematic because this case involves conduct committed when Trump was not president." No functional immunity should apply here. And yet the postponements keep accumulating.

Trump's Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Evidence Deemed Too Prejudicial

The core of Trump's argument concerns evidentiary admissibility. His attorneys contend that Judge Lewis Kaplan erred in allowing the jury to hear testimony from two other women — Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff — who claimed Trump had sexually assaulted them years earlier. According to Team Trump, this propensity evidence of predatory sexual behavior is too remote in time and too prejudicial to be admitted. Federal Rule of Evidence 415, which permits such evidence in civil sexual assault cases, should have been tempered by Rule 403, which requires weighing probative value against prejudicial effect.

Trump also attacks the admission of the 2005 Access Hollywood audio tape, in which he is heard saying that as a star, he can do whatever he wants to women, including "grab them by the genitals." Judge Kaplan had ruled this recording relevant to establishing that Trump had previously engaged in non-consensual contact with women. Trump's attorneys contend this decision irremediably colored the jury's judgment against their client.

The Presidential Dignity Argument and Its Limits

In their final brief filed in January 2026, Trump's attorneys added a practical, almost philosophical argument: "It is deeply harmful to the fabric of our Republic that President Trump, in the midst of a historic presidency, must divert his attention from his unique and singular duties as Chief Executive to continue fighting these false and decades-old allegations." They concluded: "This mistreatment of a president cannot be tolerated."

This line of argument reveals a broader strategy. It does not rebut the facts found by the jury. It asks the nation's highest court to recognize that the presidency confers a particular dignity that should shield its holder from such proceedings. The Second Circuit dismissed this argument with remarkable clarity: "No one is above the law, including the president." But Trump's arguments were drafted for another audience — the six conservative justices of the Supreme Court.

The Second Circuit's Response: Solid Precedent

A Unanimous Decision From the Appellate Judges

The Second Circuit, as early as December 2024, unanimously confirmed the $5 million verdict. A three-judge panel, all appointed by Democratic presidents, ruled that Judge Kaplan had not erred in admitting the contested evidence. The court stated its reasoning sharply: "The district court was simply tasked with deciding whether a jury could reasonably conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump had committed an act of sexual assault."

In June 2025, the court denied Trump a rehearing by the full panel. Trump then brought the case to the Supreme Court in November 2025. The Second Circuit had also ruled that even if some evidence had been wrongly admitted — a hypothesis the judges did not concede — it would not have changed the outcome of the trial, so strong was the evidence in Carroll's favor. Carroll's attorneys had presented approximately a dozen witnesses. Trump's team presented none.

The $83 Million Case: A Procedural Fortress

In the $83 million case, the Second Circuit was even more direct in September 2025. The court characterized Trump's conduct as of "exceptionally high, perhaps unprecedented reprehensibility," justifying substantial punitive damages. Trump had sought to substitute the federal government for himself as defendant — a maneuver that would have rendered the case null, as the United States cannot be sued for defamation. The judges rejected this argument, noting it had been raised fifteen months after the judgment, far too late to be considered.

In April 2026, the Second Circuit's full bench refused en banc reconsideration by a majority of twelve judges to three. The three dissenters — Menashi, Park, and Livingston, all appointed by Republican presidents — believed the presidential immunity argument deserved deeper examination. This minority vote is what Trump's team is building its next Supreme Court appeal on.

The DOJ Against Carroll: Investigation or Retaliation?

The 2022 Deposition and Billionaire Reid Hoffman

In May 2026, CNN exclusively revealed that the Department of Justice had launched a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll. The subject: determining whether Carroll had committed perjury during a 2022 deposition in which she stated she was receiving no outside funding for her lawsuits. It subsequently emerged that billionaire Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn co-founder and prominent Democratic donor, had financed part of her legal costs through a Chicago-based nonprofit.

Carroll, now 82 years old, had explained that she had simply forgotten this funding. Her attorneys had informed the judge and Trump's attorneys of the existence of this funding two weeks before the trial. Judge Kaplan had concluded there was no reason to doubt Carroll's credibility and had prohibited any further questions on the subject. The Second Circuit had already examined and rejected the argument that Carroll had lied.

Chicago, Blanche, and Institutional Conflict of Interest

The investigation was assigned to federal prosecutors in Chicago, not New York where the events took place. The stated rationale: Hoffman operates a nonprofit in Illinois. But legal experts questioned by NPR underscored how extraordinarily unusual this configuration is. A prosecutor from a district unconnected to the facts is summoned to examine a case with no organic link to his jurisdiction.

Attorney General Todd Blanche — Trump's former personal attorney in the same Carroll case — recused himself from the matter. He is not participating in discussions. The investigation is managed by other officials in the Deputy Attorney General's office. Former DOJ officials called the entire undertaking unprecedented and noted that it is not illegal for a third party to fund a plaintiff's legal costs.

The Two Carroll Cases: A Complex Procedural Architecture

Carroll I and Carroll II: Two Trials, One Woman

To understand the situation before the Supreme Court, one must distinguish Carroll I from Carroll II. Carroll I is the action filed in 2019 for defamation, following Trump's statements denying he knew her. This case was tried second (January 2024) and produced the $83 million verdict. Carroll II is the action filed in 2022 under New York's Adult Survivors Act, which covered both the 1996 sexual assault and the 2022 defamatory statements. This second case was tried first (May 2023) and produced the $5 million verdict.

It is Carroll II — the $5 million verdict — that is currently the subject of Trump's certiorari petition before the Supreme Court. Carroll I — the $83 million verdict — is not yet formally before the Supreme Court, but Trump announced on June 2, 2026 that he would file that appeal within the following month. If the Court decided to handle both cases jointly, the decision to accept or refuse them would be pushed to fall 2026, or even to the following judicial term.

Why Linking the Two Appeals Is Questionable on the Merits

Steve Vladeck highlighted the central problem with this strategy: the two cases raise fundamentally different legal questions. Carroll II concerns the admissibility of propensity evidence (Rules 413, 415, and 403). Carroll I concerns presidential immunity for statements made during the first term and the Westfall Act, which would allow the federal government to be substituted for Trump as defendant. These are two distinct bodies of law with no significant overlap.

Linking the two petitions serves no legal clarity. It serves to buy time. Each additional month is another month before Trump must pay — or definitively settle his legal standing vis-à-vis Carroll. The court had also granted Trump the right to stay enforcement of the $83 million verdict during the appeals process, in exchange for a $7.4 million bond to cover additional interest.

The Evidence Argument: Access Hollywood and the Testimonies

The Access Hollywood Tape: Relevant or Prejudicial?

The heart of Trump's appeal concerns the evidence admitted at the 2023 trial. The 2005 Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump literally says: "When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. […] Grab them by the genitals. You can do anything," was admitted by Judge Kaplan. Kaplan found this recording relevant to establishing that Trump had previously engaged in non-consensual contact with women. Trump's attorneys argue that this evidence is too old, too prejudicial, and that Rule 403 required its exclusion.

The Second Circuit rejected this argument categorically. It concluded that even if the judge had erred in admitting certain evidence, that error was harmless given the overall strength of Carroll's case. Approximately a dozen witnesses had corroborated Carroll's account. Trump's team had presented no witnesses to rebut these facts. The jury verdict would have been identical without the contested evidence.

The Testimonies of Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff

The two women whose testimonies Trump challenges are Jessica Leeds, who states that Trump sexually assaulted her on an airplane in 1979, and Natasha Stoynoff, a People Magazine journalist, who states he assaulted her at his Mar-a-Lago estate in 2005. Trump has always denied these allegations. His attorneys argue that incidents alleged to be so old and with no direct connection to the Carroll case cannot serve to establish a behavioral "propensity."

Trump-appointed judges Menashi and Park, in their dissent at the Second Circuit, had expressed doubts about the rigor with which Rule 415 had been applied. That dissent is what Trump's team is building on before the Supreme Court: if judges from the same court had doubts, the nine Supreme Court justices should resolve them. But a dissent from two out of fifteen judges is not precedent. It is a minority view.

The DOJ's Role: Substitution as Defendant and Court Intervention

The Westfall Maneuver: The Government in Trump's Place

In the Carroll I case (the $83 million), Trump's strategy took an unprecedented institutional turn. His team asked the DOJ to substitute the federal government for Trump as defendant, invoking the Westfall Act. This law immunizes federal officials for acts performed in the course of their official duties. If the government substituted itself for Trump, the case would be null — the United States cannot be sued for defamation.

The DOJ did in fact support this argument before the Supreme Court in May 2026, filing a brief in Trump's favor. But the appeals court had already rejected this attempt: "Trump and the government waived any right to seek substitution" by failing to request it when the case was remanded to the district court. A sound argument in principle but impracticably late in practice.

The Conflict Between the DOJ and Judicial Independence

The DOJ's intervention in favor of a sitting president in a civil case in which he is personally implicated is, according to several former legal officials, a highly problematic use of federal resources. The DOJ is supposed to defend the public interest, not the personal interests of the president. The fact that Blanche recused himself does not resolve the fundamental problem: the line between Trump's interests and those of the federal government has been deliberately blurred.

For Carroll, this convergence between the White House, the DOJ, and Trump's defense team represents systemic pressure on the judicial system. Her attorneys declined to comment on the DOJ's intervention but recalled that the appeals court had already established that this belated substitution was impermissible and would change nothing about the applicable law.

What This Reveals About Trump and American Institutions

Trump — Necessary Evil or Structural Threat?

I am a pro-Western columnist. I believe that America, despite its contradictions, is an indispensable pillar of the global liberal order. And as such, I can acknowledge that Trump, on certain geopolitical files — pressure on NATO, firmness toward China, toughness toward Iran — has acted usefully for Western interests. He is, in many respects, a necessary evil for a West that had lost its sense of strategic competition.

But "necessary evil" does not mean "untouchable." The Carroll case illuminates a deep and troubling tendency: Trump systematically uses the institutional levers of the state to neutralize judicial decisions unfavorable to him. This is not a legitimate defense before the courts. It is a war of attrition against the institutions themselves. And this war has victims, not just E. Jean Carroll.

The Signal Sent to Sexual Assault Survivors

Carroll is 82 years old. She has been fighting since 2019. She has won twice before a jury. She is now the target of a federal government criminal investigation. If this country sends sexual assault survivors the message that winning before a jury is not enough — that all it takes is for their assailant to be elected president for the DOJ to turn its weapon against them — then this is a civilizational regression that the West cannot afford.

The independence of justice is not a democratic luxury. It is the foundation. When a sitting president combines inexplicable Supreme Court deferrals, DOJ intervention in his own civil cases, and a criminal investigation against his accuser, he is testing the system's resistance. The question is whether the system will hold.

Carroll's Response and Her Attorneys

Roberta Kaplan: Displayed Confidence, Long Battle Ahead

Roberta Kaplan, Carroll's attorney, declared in October 2025 that she was "fairly confident" the Supreme Court would not take the case. Her argument: questions of evidentiary admissibility in civil cases are generally not within the Supreme Court's purview. "There is nothing in this case that warrants the Supreme Court's attention," she stated. She emphasized that even if the judge had made an error, it was not a determinative error, which greatly reduced the Court's interest in the case.

Carroll and her attorneys declined to comment on the most recent appeal. But the Carroll camp has maintained a consistent position throughout: the evidence was strong, the jury deliberated freely, and no procedural maneuver should erase that verdict. The $5 million is currently held in a judicial account pending the final decision. Carroll said she plans to donate much of it to organizations defending women's rights and voting rights — "causes that Donald Trump hates."

An 82-Year-Old Woman Facing the State Apparatus

E. Jean Carroll is 82 years old. She was a celebrated columnist, author of an advice column in Elle magazine for decades. She made the decision to speak publicly in 2019. Since then, her life has been consumed by trials, appeals, presidential denials, and now a criminal investigation. She received in February 2026, without having solicited it, a Trump campaign email titled "Happy Valentine's Day E. Jean!" declaring that Trump loved her and that she surely loved him back. She shared the screenshot with the words: "Yes, we do live in a crazy world."

This grotesque detail says everything about the atmosphere in which this proceeding is unfolding. On one side, solid jury verdicts confirmed on appeal. On the other, a president who denies everything, deploys his DOJ, and sends unsolicited Valentine's Day emails to the woman who defeated him in court. This is not politics. This is institutionalized harassment.

The Law & Order Fabrication: When Team Trump Submits False Evidence

A Fictional Plotline Used as a Legal Argument

In February 2026, Mother Jones revealed a stunning detail: Trump's attorney Justin D. Smith had claimed in his Supreme Court petition that Carroll's accusations "precisely mirrored" the plot of a 2012 episode of the TV series Law & Order: SVU. The episode in question, titled "Theatre Tricks," centered according to Smith on a "business mogul who fantasizes about a sexual assault in a Bergdorf Goodman fitting room."

The reality: the episode in question does not match this description. The fitting room scene involved a notorious New York judge, not a mogul. And the acts in the fitting room were consensual and premeditated. A production official from the show had told CNN in 2019 that the series had "no correlation whatsoever" with Carroll's allegations. Submitting false information to a federal court can constitute a federal crime punishable by five years' imprisonment.

The Conspiracy Theory as a Legal Strategy

This narrative rewriting attempt fits into a broader strategy: transforming the Carroll case into a fictional conspiracy against Trump. The same logic drives the Access Hollywood argument, the attacks on Hoffman's funding, the DOJ criminal investigation. It all fits: if Carroll invented her story drawing inspiration from a TV show, if she lied about her funding, if she is a pawn in the anti-Trump network — then jury verdicts become errors to correct, not truths to respect.

But juries do not deliberate on conspiracy theories. They deliberate on evidence. And the evidence presented to two separate juries led to two separate verdicts of liability. Smith and his colleagues can multiply their arguments before the Supreme Court. What they cannot erase is what twelve citizens concluded after hearing everything.

The Road Ahead: Fall 2026 and the Unknowns

The Carroll II Decision Pushed to Fall

According to the letter filed on June 2, 2026 by Trump's attorneys, the appeal on the $83 million (Carroll I) should be formally filed with the Supreme Court in the following weeks. If the Court decides to examine both petitions jointly — as Trump's attorneys suggest — the decision to accept or deny one or both would very likely be pushed to fall 2026, or even to the 2026–2027 judicial term beginning in October.

This prospect is deliberately favorable to Trump. The longer the uncertainty lasts, the longer payment is deferred. The $7.4 million bond for the $83 million is accruing. The $5 million in the judicial account is accumulating interest that will go to Carroll if the Court denies the appeal. But the judicial clock runs far more slowly than reality for an 82-year-old plaintiff.

If the Supreme Court Accepts: What Is at Stake?

If the nine justices decide to take up the Carroll II appeal, oral arguments would be scheduled during the 2026–2027 term. A decision would come in spring or summer 2027. The Court would then be required to settle important questions about the admissibility of propensity evidence in civil sexual assault cases — rules that apply to thousands of cases across the country, far beyond the Trump case alone.

If the Court denies both appeals, Trump will have to pay. With interest, the bill already exceeds $100 million. That is a substantial sum, even for a man who boasts of being a billionaire. And every day of procedural delay is another day that money stays in his pocket rather than going to the woman justice decided it belonged to.

Conclusion: The Institution Holds — But for How Long?

What the Carroll Case Says About America in 2026

The E. Jean Carroll case has become far more than a civil dispute between a columnist and a former president. It is a full-scale test of the resilience of American institutions against an executive that uses them as defensive weapons. Two juries have rendered their verdicts. Two appeals courts have confirmed them. The Justice Department has turned its investigation against the plaintiff. The Supreme Court defers indefinitely. And the president sends Valentine's Day emails to his legally recognized victim.

The American judicial institution has not collapsed. It holds — but it is under pressure. What is at stake here is not only the fate of $100 million or the reputation of an 82-year-old woman. It is the question of whether, in America, the presidency can now immunize someone against the consequences of jury verdicts. The answer to that question will define the credibility of the Western rule of law for a generation.

The West Cannot Afford This Precedent

The West faces adversaries — Russia, China, Iran, North Korea — who argue that liberal democracy is a facade, that Western elites are not subject to the law, that justice is merely a disguised political tool. Every time an American president uses the state apparatus to dodge a jury verdict in a sexual assault case, he hands those adversaries the best possible rhetorical ammunition. The West can do better. It is capable of it. The question is whether it still wants to.

E. Jean Carroll said, after the second verdict: "We have shown that Trump can be beaten." That was not a declaration of total victory. It was a reminder that institutions, when they function, serve a purpose. Taking that for granted would be the worst of mistakes.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Sources

Primary Sources

CNN — An explosive appeal from Trump over E. Jean Carroll stalls at the Supreme Court — June 22, 2026

CNN — Exclusive: Justice Department launches a criminal investigation into Carroll — May 27, 2026

U.S. Supreme Court — Official Docket, Trump v. Carroll, No. 25-573 — updated 2026

Secondary Sources

Steve Vladeck, One First — Bonus 233: The (Two) E. Jean Carroll Cases — June 17, 2026

SCOTUSblog — Trump v. Carroll, complete docket for the pending petition — 2026

Raw Story — Trump team busted for using false Law and Order plot to smear sex abuse victim — February 9, 2026

The Guardian — US justice department reportedly opens criminal inquiry into E Jean Carroll — May 27, 2026

NPR — Former DOJ official on why its criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll is unusual — May 31, 2026