Supreme Court rejects Trump's appeal of Carroll verdict

Introduction: a ruling that closes seven years of legal battle

The June 29, 2026 rejection

The Supreme Court of the United States announced on June 29, 2026 that it was declining to hear President Donald Trump's appeal of a 2023 jury verdict finding him liable for sexual abuse and defamation against writer E. Jean Carroll. The decision, delivered in a brief order without detailed explanation, leaves intact the $5 million civil judgment against him, according to the Associated Press.

No dissent was noted among the justices, a signal that the high court considered this case unworthy of reconsideration, after a long and winding legal journey spanning nearly seven years, according to The 19th.

A second defeat the same day

The same day, the Supreme Court also refused to revive the $300 million defamation lawsuit filed by lawyer Alan Dershowitz against CNN, according to NBC News and Bloomberg. These two simultaneous rulings reinforce long-established legal protections for the media and for plaintiffs in cases involving public figures.

This judicial double-header, though covering two separate cases, illustrates a particularly busy day for the high court, which issued several important rulings directly affecting the president's political and media circle.

The background of the Carroll v. Trump case

The origins of a legal conflict dating back to 2019

E. Jean Carroll, a longtime columnist for Elle magazine, accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan, in the mid-1990s. When Trump publicly denied the accusations, calling them a "hoax" and claiming Carroll "wasn't his type," she filed a defamation lawsuit, according to details reported by ABC News.

A New York jury reached its verdict in May 2023, concluding that Trump had indeed sexually abused and forcibly touched Carroll, and awarded her $5 million in damages for the assault and the defamation that followed.

A separate second trial over later defamatory remarks

A second trial, covering additional defamatory remarks made by Trump while he was already president, concluded in January 2024 with an even harsher verdict: the jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million, including $7.3 million for emotional harm, $11 million for reputational damage, and $65 million in punitive damages, according to Wikipedia and court records reviewed.

This second judgment of $83.3 million is the subject of a separate appeal that Trump also plans to bring before the Supreme Court, according to the Associated Press, meaning the legal battle between the two parties is not yet fully over.

The appeal's turbulent legal journey

Fifteen postponements before the final ruling

Trump's appeal to the Supreme Court, filed on November 10, 2025 after securing a two-month extension, followed an unusual procedural path: the high court postponed its conference on the matter no fewer than fifteen times over the first seven months of 2026, according to an analysis by CNN. No other case this term was postponed as many times, with one exception.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had already upheld the original verdict beforehand, rejecting in April 2026 Trump's request for a rehearing before the full circuit bench, according to Wikipedia.

The legal arguments put forward by the defense

The petition filed by Trump's lawyers centered mainly on whether the admission of the Access Hollywood recording and testimony from other accusers had violated federal rules of evidence, with his lawyers arguing that the case's significance was heightened by his position as president and by their belief that Carroll's accusations were false, according to the petition document reviewed on the Supreme Court's website.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument without giving a detailed rationale, a common practice when the high court declines to grant certiorari, meaning it formally declines to hear a case.

Carroll's lawyer's reaction

An unequivocal declaration of victory

Roberta Kaplan, E. Jean Carroll's lawyer, released a statement declaring that "today's Supreme Court decision confirms once and for all the jury's unanimous verdict that President Donald J. Trump sexually assaulted and defamed E. Jean Carroll," according to remarks reported by ABC News and NBC News.

She added that Trump's multiple attempts to appeal the verdict had all failed, and that the June 29 decision put an end to his quest to escape accountability, according to the same sources.

What this actually means for the payment

The $5.55 million owed to Carroll, including accumulated interest, has remained in a court-controlled account since June 23, 2023, according to Wikipedia. The Supreme Court's rejection of the appeal now clears the way for those funds to be released to Carroll, though Trump technically has until July 25, 2026 to ask the high court to reconsider its decision not to hear the case.

This additional window, though unlikely to reverse the decision according to several legal observers cited by SCOTUSblog, illustrates the persistent slowness of the legal process even after an apparently final rejection.

The Dershowitz v. CNN case, in parallel

An origin story tracing back to the first impeachment trial

The second case decided the same day involved Alan Dershowitz, a retired Harvard law professor, who was suing CNN for defamation over the network's coverage of remarks he made defending Donald Trump during his first impeachment trial in 2020, according to Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly.

The Supreme Court declined to hear Dershowitz's appeal, leaving intact a federal appeals court ruling that had thrown out his $300 million lawsuit, according to Bloomberg.

Reaffirming the New York Times v. Sullivan precedent

According to the Los Angeles Times, this ruling reaffirms the high bar set by the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan precedent, which shields media outlets from defamation lawsuits filed by public figures except in cases of proven actual malice. This reaffirmation comes as several figures close to Trump have increasingly filed lawsuits against major media outlets in recent years.

The rejection of this appeal thus amounts, indirectly, to a win for American press freedom, at a time when several outlets face growing legal pressure from figures politically aligned with the current administration.

The Supreme Court's busy June 2026 calendar

A string of major rulings affecting the presidential agenda

These two rejections came as the Supreme Court was issuing several of the term's most significant rulings, some directly touching Trump's political agenda, according to video reports from the Associated Press broadcast the same day. That same day, the high court also upheld Trump's power to remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission, according to Reuters.

This mix of wins and losses for the administration illustrates a court that doesn't follow a uniform partisan line, ruling case by case on the legal merits specific to each matter rather than along a predictable overall political direction.

A term marked by sensitive cases for Trump

This Supreme Court term has been especially packed with cases directly or indirectly involving the president, spanning questions of executive power, personal civil disputes like Carroll's, and lawsuits from figures close to his administration like Dershowitz's.

This accumulation of sensitive cases places the high court under especially intense public scrutiny, with every ruling examined for what it might reveal about the real balance between executive and judicial power in the United States.

What this reveals about presidential accountability

A president still answerable despite his office

This ruling confirms a fundamental principle of the American judicial system: the presidency does not grant total immunity from the civil consequences of acts committed before taking office, nor even from certain defamatory statements made while in office, as illustrated by the second Carroll trial covering remarks Trump made while already president.

This principle, though obvious on paper, carries particular resonance in the current political climate, where the personal accountability of elected leaders is the subject of intense debate on both sides of the American political spectrum.

A signal for future civil suits against leaders

This case could serve as a reference point for future cases involving political leaders accused of misconduct before or during their time in office, by confirming that civil courts retain jurisdiction to handle this type of dispute, regardless of the accused's political status.

This legal continuity is, in my view, an important safeguard against the temptation, in any future administration, to treat the presidency as an absolute shield against personal accountability.

Political and public reactions

Relative silence from the White House

At the time this decision was published, no detailed official statement was widely reported from the White House or Trump's lawyers specifically addressing this rejection, beyond confirmation that a separate appeal concerning the $83.3 million judgment would be filed independently, according to the Associated Press.

This relative restraint contrasts with Trump's generally vocal reactions to unfavorable court rulings, which could reflect a communications strategy aimed at minimizing media attention on this particular case.

Extensive media coverage despite the order's brevity

Despite the terse nature of the Supreme Court's order, the decision was widely covered by outlets including the Associated Press, CNN, NBC News, ABC News, the Los Angeles Times, and SCOTUSblog, reflecting sustained public interest in a case that has shadowed Trump's presidency since its very beginning.

This broad media coverage also illustrates the persistent difficulty, for a sitting president, of containing public attention on personal disputes that predate his political career but continue to shape it.

Implications for the second appeal

A separate appeal still to come

According to the Associated Press, Trump's lawyers have indicated their intention to also appeal the second $83.3 million verdict to the Supreme Court, a process that could take several more months before reaching a final decision.

The June 29 rejection concerning the first $5 million verdict doesn't automatically prejudge the outcome of this second appeal, though the overall legal consistency of the Carroll case leaves little doubt about the strength of the plaintiff's position should a second review take place.

A delay strategy nearing its limits

Trump's strategy of filing multiple appeals and procedural delay requests has considerably postponed actual payment of the sums owed to Carroll, but that strategy now appears to be running up against its limits with this final rejection by the Supreme Court on the first part of the case.

Whether the same approach will be tried for the second, far more costly verdict, and whether the high court will prove just as unwilling to revisit that second judgment as it was the first, remains to be seen.

The symbolic weight of this ruling for American justice

A resilience test for judicial institutions

This case, closely followed since 2019, has tested the resilience of American judicial institutions against a particularly determined defense with considerable resources. The fact that the jury's original verdict survived seven years of successive appeals, up to this final rejection by the Supreme Court, demonstrates a form of robustness in the judicial system in the face of political and media pressure.

That robustness should not be taken for granted indefinitely, however: it depends on the ongoing vigilance of institutions and the press to faithfully document every stage of this kind of prolonged legal proceeding.

What this means for future accusers of public figures

E. Jean Carroll's legal success, despite years of fierce opposition, could encourage other people who have experienced similar conduct from public figures to pursue their own legal action, despite the procedural obstacles and lengthy delays this type of case typically involves.

This precedent, though specific to this case, sends a broader signal about the American judicial system's ability to hold powerful figures accountable, even when the process takes years to conclude.

The limits of what can be said at this stage

What remains uncertain about the second verdict

It would be premature to claim that the second $83.3 million verdict will meet the same fate as the first before the Supreme Court, since that appeal had not yet been formally filed at the time of this writing, according to information available from the Associated Press.

No source reviewed allows for a confident prediction of the timeline or outcome of this second proceeding, and caution is warranted before anticipating a result that is not yet legally settled.

The lack of detailed reasoning from the Supreme Court

As is standard practice for certiorari denials, the Supreme Court provided no detailed reasoning explaining its refusal to hear Trump's appeal, which limits our ability to precisely analyze the legal reasoning that guided this decision beyond the outcome itself.

This lack of reasoning, though consistent with the high court's usual practices, deserves to be flagged as a legitimate limit on any overreaching interpretation of the nine justices' exact motivations.

The real financial weight for Donald Trump

Five million plus interest accumulated since 2023

The original $5 million judgment, held in escrow since June 23, 2023, continued to accrue interest over the three years of appeals, bringing the total to roughly $5.55 million, according to Wikipedia. This amount, though relatively modest compared to Trump's personal fortune, represents a legal precedent whose significance goes well beyond its monetary value.

The second judgment of $83.3 million, by contrast, is a far more substantial sum, one that could have a real financial impact if the upcoming appeal to the Supreme Court also fails, according to the same legal analyses.

A matter of precedent more than amount

Beyond the sums involved, this case sets an important precedent on the ability of civil courts to hold powerful political figures accountable, regardless of their office at the time of the conduct or the ruling. This precedent could shape how future similar disputes involving political leaders are handled by the American judicial system.

This symbolic dimension, more than the amount itself, likely explains why this case has drawn such sustained media interest for nearly seven years, well beyond what its financial value alone would justify.

The media's role in covering this case

Sustained coverage since the case began

Since E. Jean Carroll's first public accusations in 2019, leading American outlets have covered every stage of this case with sustained attention, helping maintain constant public pressure on the legal process despite its exceptional length.

This ongoing coverage likely played a role in keeping public attention on a case that, without this sustained media visibility, could have faded into general indifference amid the many postponements and successive appeals.

Balancing factual coverage with sensationalism

This case also illustrates the challenge of covering a politically charged legal matter: maintaining the factual rigor required while avoiding the kind of sensationalism that would undermine the credibility of the coverage itself.

That is the balance I've tried to strike throughout this report, relying exclusively on official court documents and verified journalistic sources rather than speculation or unfounded interpretation.

What this case changes for the 2028 campaign

A legal legacy that will follow the end of the term

This case, now settled on its first count, will nonetheless remain part of Donald Trump's legal legacy as his second term moves toward its end. The Supreme Court's final confirmation of this verdict is now an established fact that can no longer be challenged in court, whatever the future political climate.

Trump's political opponents may continue to invoke this confirmed verdict in public debate, while his supporters will likely continue to downplay its significance, a polarization that should surprise no one given the current American political climate.

A case now etched into the official legal record

Regardless of the political interpretations that will follow, this verdict is now a permanent part of Donald Trump's official legal record, alongside other civil and criminal proceedings that have marked his political career since 2016.

This accumulation of legal cases, regardless of their individual outcomes, will continue to draw careful historical scrutiny long after his presidency ends, an exercise that goes well beyond the scope of this report alone.

Conclusion: the end of a chapter, not the whole story

A verdict definitively confirmed

The Supreme Court's June 29, 2026 decision definitively confirms the 2023 verdict finding Donald Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation against E. Jean Carroll, ending seven years of fierce legal contestation over this first part of the case.

This rejection, combined with the same-day dismissal of Alan Dershowitz's appeal against CNN, illustrates a Supreme Court that continues to decide its cases on their own legal merits, independent of the political pressure exerted by powerful figures across the spectrum.

A case that still bears watching

The second appeal concerning the $83.3 million judgment remains pending, and its outcome will determine whether the full legal chapter between Trump and Carroll closes for good or whether new procedural steps will further extend a case the American public has followed for nearly a decade.

This case will remain, whatever happens next, a textbook example of both the slowness and the persistence of the American judicial system when it comes to disputes involving the country's highest political offices.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and my acknowledged biases

I handle legal cases involving Donald Trump with a strict standard of factual transparency, with no unsourced conspiracy theories. I believe civil justice should apply equally to all public figures, regardless of their office, which shapes my favorable reading of this Supreme Court decision.

I have no personal or professional ties to E. Jean Carroll, Roberta Kaplan, Alan Dershowitz, CNN, or Donald Trump's legal team.

What I don't know and my method

I do not know the exact motivations of the nine Supreme Court justices behind this rejection, since no detailed reasoning was published. My method is to rely on available official court documents, statements from the parties involved, and a range of independent journalistic sources to reconstruct this case's timeline as faithfully as possible.

Sources

Primary sources

Supreme Court of the United States — Petition and Appendix, case 25-573 — November 10, 2025

Wikipedia — E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump, full case timeline

Secondary sources

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

NBC News — Supreme Court rejects Trump effort to overturn E. Jean Carroll verdict — June 29, 2026

SCOTUSblog — Supreme Court will not consider $5 million verdict against Trump — June 29, 2026

Los Angeles Times — Supreme Court turns away Alan Dershowitz's defamation suit against CNN — June 29, 2026

Reuters — US Supreme Court backs Trump's firing of FTC member — June 29, 2026