# The Supreme Court Permanently Shuts the Door on Trump in the Carroll Case

> On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal filed by Donald Trump against the verdict that found

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Reportage
- Published: 2026-07-05
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/la-cour-supreme-ferme-definitivement-la-porte-a-trump-dans-l-affaire-carroll

## Introduction: One More Black Monday for Trump's Lawyers

### A Decision Without Explanation, But Without Appeal

On **June 29, 2026**, the **U.S. Supreme Court** declined to hear the **appeal** filed by **Donald Trump** against the **verdict** that found him liable for **sexual abuse** and **defamation** against writer **E. Jean Carroll**. As is customary for this type of decision, the nine **justices** offered no written explanation, and no public dissent was noted. This time, institutional silence carried the weight of a **verdict**.

The decision brings a final close to a legal battle that began more than three years ago, and confirms that **Trump** must now pay **Carroll** the sum of **$5 million**, plus accumulated interest since the original **verdict** handed down by a New York **jury** in **2023**.

### A Case Distinct From the Larger $83.3 Million Judgment

Two proceedings need to be clearly distinguished here, since they are often confused in public debate. The first, decided on **June 29**, concerns the original **2023** verdict setting damages at **$5 million** for **sexual abuse** and **defamation**. The second, still on **appeal** before the **Supreme Court**, involves a far larger **judgment**: **$83.3 million**, awarded by a second New York **jury** in **January 2024** for aggravated **defamation**, including **$65 million** in punitive damages.

**Trump**'s lawyers have already announced their intention to ask the **Supreme Court** to also review this second verdict, meaning the legal battle between the two parties, even with its first round now closed, is far from over.

*Watching the **Supreme Court** refuse to hear this appeal without even bothering to explain itself speaks volumes about how weak the original case really was. Nine **justices**, six of them conservatives partly appointed by **Trump** himself, decided the case didn't even merit reconsideration. That silence says more than any written opinion could.*

## What the New York Jury Originally Established in 2023

### An Assault in a Fitting Room, Three Decades Ago

The case originates from an accusation made by **E. Jean Carroll**, a former columnist for **Elle** magazine, who says she was sexually assaulted by **Donald Trump** in a dressing room at a **New York** department store in the mid-**1990s**. After going public with the accusation, **Carroll** saw **Trump** categorically deny the allegations and publicly call her a liar, which led to a second lawsuit for defamation.

In **2023**, a federal New York jury ruled unambiguously: **Trump** was indeed liable for **sexual abuse** against **Carroll**, as well as defamation for publicly calling her a liar. The jury awarded her **$5 million** in damages.

### The Federal Judge Rejects the Unfair-Trial Argument

Before the lower courts, **Trump**'s lawyers had argued that the trial was conducted unfairly, in particular because the judge had allowed jurors to hear testimony about two **prior** sexual assault accusations against **Trump**, as well as the now-infamous **Access Hollywood** tape, in which he bragged in vulgar terms about being able to touch women without their consent.

This line of defense, already rejected by the lower courts, also failed before the **Supreme Court**, which chose not to even examine the merits of the argument by simply refusing to take up the case.

*Claiming an unfair trial after jurors simply heard evidence of a repeated pattern of behavior, including his own recorded words, reflects a defense strategy that confuses the discomfort of the truth with procedural unfairness. Courts at every level saw through this maneuver clearly.*

## Roberta Kaplan's Immediate Reaction, Carroll's Attorney

### One Message: The End of the Quest for Impunity

**E. Jean Carroll**'s attorney, **Roberta Kaplan**, reacted with blunt firmness to the announcement of the **Supreme Court**'s decision. According to her, the decision "confirms once and for all the jury's unanimous verdict that President Donald J. Trump sexually assaulted and defamed E. Jean **Carroll**."

**Kaplan** added that "his multiple attempts to appeal have all failed, and today's judgment ends his quest to escape **accountability** for his actions." A statement that sums up years of legal proceedings marked by repeated appeals, requests for stays, and multiple attempts to delay the financial reckoning.

### A Long Legal Road Full of Procedural Obstacles

It's worth recalling that **Trump** had multiplied procedural maneuvers in this case: a request for rehearing by the full appeals court (rejected in **June 2025** by an **8-2** vote), followed by a two-month extension to file his appeal with the **Supreme Court**, obtained and used up until the final filing of his petition on **November 10, 2025**.

This accumulation of delays and appeals allowed **Trump** to push back the payment deadline for several years, a classic legal strategy that, this time, finally ran into the wall of the country's highest court's refusal.

*Credit is due to **Roberta Kaplan** and her client, who held firm against a delay strategy deployed by one of the best-funded legal teams in the country. This victory, even on an amount relatively modest compared to the other verdict, carries considerable symbolic weight.*

## A Strangely Chaotic and Slow Judicial Calendar

### Fifteen Postponements on One Case, a Noted Anomaly

According to a **CNN** analysis, **Trump**'s appeal had been listed and then postponed fifteen times on the **Supreme Court**'s docket since it was initially filed in **November 2025**, a rate of postponement matched only by one other case that same court term. An unusual pace that fueled speculation about the reasons behind the delay.

The day before a private conference scheduled for **February 27, 2026** to discuss the case, it was pulled from the docket with no explanation given by the Court, one more procedural mystery in a case already marked by unusual opacity for one of this media profile.

### Multiple Theories on the Reasons for the Delays

Several explanations were floated to understand these repeated postponements: an opinion being drafted by one or more justices, or the Court waiting on other related appeals tied to the **Trump-Carroll** dispute that might soon reach it. Whatever the exact reason, the delay objectively benefited **Trump**, pushing back the payment deadline on a **$5 million** verdict already more than three years old.

This opaque way of operating at the highest American court, however procedurally routine it may be, nonetheless raises questions about the judicial system's ability to handle high-stakes public cases with diligence, regardless of the parties involved.

*These fifteen consecutive postponements on such a closely watched case deserved, in my view, a minimum of transparency from the **Supreme Court**. Institutional silence may be tradition, but it also feeds legitimate suspicion about the real motivations behind these repeated delays.*

## The Second Legal Front: $83.3 Million Still at Stake

### A Massive Verdict Upheld by the Appeals Court in September 2025

Alongside this first legal victory for **Carroll**, the second case, involving the **$83.3 million** awarded in **January 2024** for aggravated defamation, continues along its own judicial path. The **Second Circuit** Court of Appeals had upheld this massive verdict as early as **September 2025**, describing **Trump**'s attacks on **Carroll** as "extraordinary and unprecedented," thereby justifying the exceptional scale of the financial penalty.

With accumulated interest, the total sum **Trump** now owes in this second case would reach approximately **$89.7 million**, according to a spokesperson for **Carroll**'s legal team, an amount that keeps growing as long as the appeal process remains unresolved.

### A Payment Stay Secured While Awaiting the Supreme Court

In **May 2026**, the appeals court granted **Trump** a stay of payment on this second verdict, exempting him from paying the sum until the **Supreme Court** had a chance to review the case or reject the appeal. In exchange for this stay, **Trump** had to increase his bond by an additional **$7.46 million** to cover the interest that would keep accumulating during the proceedings.

This situation illustrates the unusual complexity of this two-front dispute, where **Trump** has now definitively lost on the first front, while still holding a slim but real hope of having his second appeal heard by the country's highest court.

*The fact that Trump still owes nearly $90 million on the second case, on top of the now-final $5 million, shows the scale of the legal price of his persistent public denial of facts that a jury has found established on two separate occasions.*

## Trump's Reaction: Between Denial and Public Minimization

### "A Fake Case," in the President's Own Words

Reacting to the **Supreme Court**'s decision, **Donald Trump** called the case "fake," saying he was "surprised" by the Court's refusal to hear what he described as "a case fabricated against me by a woman I never met." A defense line he has maintained publicly since the start of the case, despite two separate jury verdicts establishing his **liability**.

This posture of ongoing denial, though typical of **Trump**'s public communication style when facing unfavorable court rulings, contrasts sharply with the total absence of any substantial legal argument he has managed to raise before the successive courts that examined the merits of the case.

### A Mixed Day Overall for the Executive Branch at the Supreme Court

It's worth noting that this unfavorable decision came on the same day the **Supreme Court** issued, in a separate case, a ruling largely favorable to the executive branch, granting **Trump** greater power to remove heads of independent federal agencies, while blocking, in a separate **5-4** decision, his attempt to remove **Federal Reserve** Governor **Lisa Cook**.

This juxtaposition of wins and losses illustrates the complexity of the relationship between the **Trump** executive branch and the country's highest court, oscillating between support for expanding presidential power and unyielding firmness on questions of personal **accountability** tied to his private conduct.

*This split between a Supreme Court that expands presidential powers on one hand, and firmly refuses to shield Trump's personal accountability on the other, deserves to be highlighted. This isn't a Court in his pocket, contrary to what some would like people to believe, but an institution that distinguishes, in its own way, between the prerogatives of the office and the wrongs of the man.*

## What This Case Reveals About Presidential Accountability

### A Precedent Confirming the Limits of Presidential Immunity

This case has also, once again, helped clarify the limits of the presidential immunity **Trump**'s lawyers invoked repeatedly during the proceedings. The appeals court had already ruled that the **Supreme Court**'s **July 2024** decision on presidential immunity, however broad for official acts, could not apply to defamatory statements made by **Trump** concerning his strictly personal and private conduct.

This legal distinction, confirmed repeatedly by the lower courts and then implicitly validated by the **Supreme Court**'s refusal to intervene, serves as an important safeguard against any future attempt to excessively expand the shield of presidential immunity to conduct unrelated to the exercise of the office.

### A Signal Sent Well Beyond the Trump Case Alone

Beyond **Donald Trump**'s specific case, this affair sends a broader signal about the American judicial system's ability to hold powerful figures accountable, even when they hold the country's highest office, for acts committed in their private and personal lives before taking office.

This principle of individual accountability, independent of the political status of the person involved, remains an essential pillar of the American judicial system's credibility in the eyes of the public, particularly in a context of intense political polarization where every court decision involving **Trump** is immediately weaponized by both sides.

*This principle of individual accountability, independent of the office held, is precisely what distinguishes a functioning democracy from a regime where power systematically protects those who wield it. I note it with a measure of relief, without any naivety about the legal battles still to come.*

## Political Reactions Split Sharply Over This Decision

### Cautious Silence on the Republican Side, Open Satisfaction Among Democrats

This **Supreme Court** decision sparked sharply divided political reactions, as is systematically the case for any legal matter involving **Trump**. On the Republican side, caution largely prevailed, with most elected officials avoiding direct comment on a case so personally embarrassing for the president, preferring instead to focus on the more favorable rulings issued the same day regarding executive powers.

On the Democratic side, several lawmakers welcomed the decision as further confirmation of **Trump**'s liability in this case, using it to remind the public of the numerous legal and ethical matters that continue to surround the **presidency**, despite his return to power.

### A Case That Will Keep Weighing on the President's Public Image

Setting aside strictly partisan considerations, this final confirmation of the original verdict will very likely continue to weigh on **Trump**'s public image, fueling criticism from his opponents over his past personal conduct, even if this doesn't seem to have any direct, measurable impact on his most loyal electoral base.

This disconnect between the personal legal consequences and the actual electoral political impact illustrates a now well-established feature of the **Trump** era: the man's ability to weather major legal controversies without it lastingly denting his political influence with his base.

*This disconnect between judicial accountability and political popularity may be the most troubling aspect of this whole affair. A jury has established the facts on two separate occasions, the Supreme Court refused to intervene, and yet the real political impact of this decision will likely remain marginal. It's revealing of a polarization that goes well beyond the simple question of established judicial truth.*

## The Broader Context of Legal Cases Targeting Trump

### A President Long Accustomed to the Courts

**Donald Trump** is no stranger to major legal confrontations. Between the criminal trials tied to hush-money payments, investigations into his handling of classified documents after his first term, and the multiple civil lawsuits like **Carroll**'s, the president has built a singular relationship with the American judicial system, oscillating between head-on confrontations and political victories that have often neutralized the concrete consequences of these proceedings.

The **Carroll** case stands out, however, for its strictly civil and personal nature, unrelated to the exercise of his presidential duties, which partly explains why the courts have consistently refused to grant him any form of immunity in this specific matter.

### An Accumulation of Cases That Hasn't Dented His Political Power

This accumulation of legal proceedings, however embarrassing each may be individually, has so far never managed to prevent **Trump** from reclaiming and then fully exercising the American **presidency**, a political phenomenon that continues to surprise many foreign observers accustomed to different standards of political accountability.

This political resilience in the face of legal adversity has become one of the defining features of **Trump**'s public career, independent of the moral judgment one might make about the facts themselves as established by successive courts.

*This ability to weather legal proceedings without any lasting political consequence is precisely what sets Trump apart from most Western public figures. I don't know whether to see this as a strength or as a troubling symptom of contemporary American political polarization.*

## The Symbolic Dimension for Survivors of Sexual Assault

### An Encouraging Precedent for Other Plaintiffs

Beyond **E. Jean Carroll**'s individual case, this **Supreme Court** decision sends an encouraging signal to other potential survivors of sexual assault who might hesitate to sue powerful public figures for fear of prolonged legal or media retaliation spanning several years.

The fact that a plaintiff, despite having far fewer legal resources than her opponent, managed to win before a jury of her peers and then see that victory upheld through the entire chain of successive appeals courts constitutes an encouraging precedent for the broader movement toward judicial recognition of sexual violence in the **United States**.

### The Persistent Limits of This Kind of Legal Victory

It's worth remaining clear-eyed, however, about the limits of this precedent: the process took more than three decades between the alleged events and the final legal resolution of this first part of the case, a timeline that shows just how difficult justice remains to access for survivors confronting public figures with considerable legal resources.

This exceptionally long duration, even if partly explained by the defendant's presidential position, is a reminder that judicial recognition of sexual violence remains a long and grueling road, even when the facts are eventually established with undeniable legal clarity.

*I'm careful not to present this victory as a miracle solution for every survivor of sexual assault confronting a powerful public figure. But it does show that sufficient tenacity, paired with solid evidence, can eventually prevail even against the most considerable legal resources.*

## The Concrete Financial Consequences for Trump

### A Cumulative Legal Bill That Keeps Growing

Adding the now-final **$5 million** to the nearly **$90 million** still at stake in the second case, **Trump** faces a cumulative legal bill approaching **$95 million** in this case alone, not counting the considerable legal fees spent on his defense over nearly three years of successive proceedings.

This sum, though substantial for most American citizens, remains relatively manageable for a personal fortune estimated in the billions of dollars, which partly explains why this legal decision, however symbolically important, shouldn't significantly affect the president's lifestyle or political activities.

### A Potential Impact on His Image Among Independent Voters

While the direct financial impact remains limited for **Trump** personally, the potential impact on his public image among independent and moderate voters could prove more significant in the medium term, particularly if new similar developments were to emerge in American public debate.

Political strategists on both sides generally agree that this type of legal case, even when confirmed, has a limited effect on the already heavily polarized electorate of the contemporary **United States**, where pre-existing political convictions tend to outweigh established legal facts.

*This relative electoral indifference to legal facts nonetheless established by juries of their peers on two separate occasions remains, in my view, one of the most troubling aspects of contemporary American politics under the Trump era.*

## What This Case Reveals About American Judicial Independence

### A Conservative Supreme Court That Still Refused to Protect Trump Here

It's significant that the current **Supreme Court**, made up of a conservative majority of **six justices**, several appointed directly by **Trump** himself during his first term, showed no particular willingness to protect him in this specific case, contrary to certain critics who systematically portray this institution as being in his pocket.

This decision significantly complicates the narrative of a Supreme Court entirely beholden to presidential interests, even if other cases decided the same day did in fact meaningfully expand certain executive powers.

### A Clear Distinction Between Institutional Powers and Personal Accountability

This distinction between expanding the institutional powers of the **presidency**, on one hand, and categorically refusing to shield the personal accountability of the man who holds that office, on the other, illustrates a form of legal sophistication that deserves recognition, regardless of one's political opinions about the current makeup of the **Court**.

This rigorous conceptual separation between office and person constitutes an important institutional safeguard against any slide toward total presidential impunity, a principle whose strength will keep being tested as other legal cases involving **Trump** continue moving through the American judicial system.

*This separation between office and person, however obvious it might seem in theory, is never guaranteed in practice in any democracy. The fact that it still holds in the United States, even imperfectly, remains good news for the country's institutional strength.*

## Lessons for Future American Administrations

### A Reminder That the Presidency Doesn't Erase a Personal Past

This case serves as an important reminder for future American administrations: the presidency, however powerful and prestigious, doesn't erase personal responsibilities incurred before taking office, and American courts retain the institutional capacity to enforce that distinction even against the most powerful occupant of the **White House**.

This precedent could also influence how future candidates for the American presidency anticipate and manage any personal legal disputes predating their election, now knowing that reaching the country's highest office offers no automatic protection against this kind of civil proceeding.

### An Institutional Balance to Preserve Over the Long Term

For defenders of the American rule of law, this case illustrates the need to preserve, over the long term, this delicate institutional balance between the respect owed to the presidency and the inescapable personal accountability of whoever holds it, a balance whose strength will keep being tested as American political polarization intensifies.

The final outcome of the second legal front, involving the **$83.3 million** still on appeal, will serve as an important new test of this institutional capacity to maintain that delicate balance between power and accountability in the months ahead.

*This institutional balance, fragile but real, deserves to be defended with vigilance by everyone who still believes in the strength of American democratic institutions, regardless of their personal partisan preference for the current occupant of the **White House**.*

## The International Reach of a Verdict Watched Well Beyond U.S. Borders

### A Case Closely Watched by Washington's Western Allies

This case, widely covered by international media, was also closely followed by chancelleries allied with Washington, where several diplomatic observers see it as a revealing test of the strength of American checks and balances at a time when domestic political polarization in the **United States** worries some **NATO** partners.

For these European observers, the American judicial system's ability to stand up to a sitting president, even on a strictly personal matter, remains a reassuring indicator of American democratic vitality, a country whose leadership role within the Western world remains central against the rival ambitions of **China** and **Russia**.

### A Striking Contrast With Rival Authoritarian Regimes

The contrast is striking when comparing this American legal process, however long and laborious it may have been, with the total absence of any equivalent recourse for victims of powerful leaders in **Russia**, **China**, or **Iran**, where no independent court could ever force a head of state to answer financially for his personal conduct.

This fundamental difference between Western democratic systems and rival authoritarian regimes shows once again why preserving American judicial independence matters far beyond the individual case of **Donald Trump** or **E. Jean Carroll**.

*Let's say it plainly: no rival authoritarian regime to the West would tolerate an independent court hitting its leader with a legal bill running into the tens of millions of dollars, and it's precisely this institutional capacity that still sets American democracy apart, imperfections and all, from its geopolitical rivals.*

## Conclusion: A Legal Victory With Echoes That Go Beyond Carroll Herself

### One Case Closed, But a Larger Fight Continues

With the **Supreme Court**'s refusal to hear the appeal, the first part of the legal battle between **E. Jean Carroll** and **Donald Trump** is now permanently closed, more than three years after the original New York jury verdict. But the second front, involving **$83.3 million** in damages for aggravated defamation, remains open and will keep occupying the courts in the months ahead.

Taken as a whole, this case will stand as one of the rare personal legal matters to have actually resulted in concrete financial consequences for **Donald Trump**, in a legal landscape otherwise marked by numerous unfinished, abandoned, or politically neutralized proceedings since his return to the **White House**.

### A Lasting Lesson on the Persistence of the Judicial System

Beyond the numbers and the procedures, this case illustrates a broader lesson about the American judicial system's ability to stand firm against repeated attempts at delay and challenge, even when the opposing side has considerable legal resources and major political influence.

**E. Jean Carroll**, now **81**, waited more than three decades to see her word recognized by the justice system, and then several more years to see that recognition withstand every possible appeal. A patience and tenacity that deserve to be acknowledged, regardless of any partisan political considerations.

*This case will stand, in my eyes, as proof that individual tenacity, backed by a judicial system that still functions, can prevail even against the most powerful man on the planet.*

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### 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.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- BBC News — Trump's final appeal of E Jean Carroll sex abuse case rejected, June 29, 2026

- Associated Press — Supreme Court rejects Trump push to toss $5M E. Jean Carroll verdict, June 29, 2026

### Secondary sources

- Al Jazeera — US Supreme Court rebuffs Trump's appeal in E Jean Carroll case, June 29, 2026

- The New York Times — Supreme Court lets $5 million sex abuse verdict against Trump stand, June 29, 2026

- Bloomberg — Supreme Court rejects Trump appeal of Carroll sex-abuse verdict, June 29, 2026

- CNN — An explosive appeal from Trump over E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse case, June 22, 2026

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/la-cour-supreme-ferme-definitivement-la-porte-a-trump-dans-l-affaire-carroll