# What the Supreme Court's silence tells every victim > Introduction: a refusal that stands as confirmation - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Profile - Published: 2026-07-03 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/temoignage-ce-que-le-silence-de-la-cour-supreme-dit-a-toutes-les-victimes ## Introduction: a refusal that stands as confirmation ### A late-June Monday that closes a chapter On **June 29, 2026**, the **U.S. Supreme Court** refused, without a single comment, to hear President **Donald Trump**'s appeal seeking to overturn a jury verdict ordering him to pay **$5 million** to writer **E. Jean Carroll** for sexual assault and defamation, according to **SCOTUSblog** and the **Los Angeles Times**. Not a single justice noted a dissent from this decision, a judicial silence that, in the muted language of the nation's highest court, amounts to a final, unappealable refusal for the former real estate developer turned president. ### Why I approach this case as testimony I choose the testimony format because this case, more than any other, tested the American justice system's capacity to handle a sexual assault accusation against the most powerful man in the country, with all the delays, postponements, and resistance that entails. **Carroll**'s own testimony, delivered before a jury in **2023**, was enough to convince jurors that **Trump** had assaulted her in a dressing room at the **Bergdorf Goodman** department store in Manhattan in the mid-1990s, according to court records cited by the **Los Angeles Times**. ## The path of a case delayed fifteen times ### An extraordinary judicial calendar According to a **CNN** analysis, **Trump**'s appeal, filed in **November 2025**, was postponed **fifteen times** on the Supreme Court's docket, a frequency matched by only one other case this judicial term, a fact that fueled speculation about internal disagreement among the justices. This delay objectively benefited the president, who was thus able to push back the obligation to pay this sum by several months, while other legal proceedings against him continued to move forward in parallel before other federal courts. ### The central role of Judge Lewis Kaplan **Federal judge Lewis Kaplan**, who presided over the original trial, had allowed the jury to consider testimony from other women alleging similar conduct by **Trump**, as well as the **Access Hollywood** recording in which he bragged about non-consensual acts, according to **Bloomberg**. It was precisely this procedural ruling that **Trump**'s legal team was challenging before the Supreme Court, arguing that this **propensity evidence** had unduly influenced the jury, an argument the **2nd Circuit** Court of Appeals had already rejected in **December 2024**. ## Trump's immediate reaction on social media ### A "fake case" according to the president On his **Truth Social** platform, **Trump** wrote that he was **"surprised"** the Court refused to **"review"** what he called a **"fake case"** brought by **"a woman I never met,"** according to remarks reported by **Axios** and **Newsweek**. This line, repeated for years despite documented photographic evidence of earlier encounters between the two, illustrates a strategy of systematic denial that has never convinced either juries or the appellate courts that have reviewed the case. ### A "lawfare" complaint heard a thousand times before The president also denounced an **"injustice"** resulting, in his telling, from a political **"weaponization"** of the courts against him, rhetoric he has used for virtually every civil and criminal proceeding brought against him in recent years, according to **Newsweek**. This reflexive victim posture, in the face of ordinary citizen juries rather than politicized prosecutors, deserves to be called out for what it is: a stubborn refusal to accept responsibility for acts that twelve separate jurors, across two separate trials, found to be established. ## The voice of attorney Roberta Kaplan ### "Definitively confirms" the jury's verdict **E. Jean Carroll**'s attorney, **Roberta Kaplan**, said in a statement that the Supreme Court's decision **"definitively confirms, once and for all, the jury's unanimous verdict"** that **Trump** sexually assaulted and defamed her client, according to remarks reported by **Axios**. She added that Trump's **"multiple attempts"** to appeal this verdict had **"all failed,"** and that this decision ends his **"quest to avoid taking responsibility for his actions,"** a phrase that precisely sums up nearly three years of legal battle. ### What this victory means for Carroll herself For **E. Jean Carroll**, a former columnist for **Elle** magazine, this decision marks the culmination of a fight that began publicly in **2019**, when she first disclosed the assault allegations in an excerpt from her memoir, immediately triggering a fierce denial from Trump. That initial denial, made while he was still president, is precisely what grounded the second civil trial that resulted in a separate **$83.3 million** judgment against him, a figure that reflects the gravity juries assigned to his repeated defamatory statements. ## The second trial and the $83.3 million judgment ### A separate judgment still on appeal Trump continues to contest before the **2nd Circuit Court of Appeals** the **$83.3 million** judgment awarded to Carroll in **2024**, this time on the basis of a **presidential immunity** defense tied to remarks made while he held the presidency, according to **Newsweek**. In **March 2026**, the Court of Appeals stayed payment of this sum pending the outcome of the appeal, on the condition that Trump post a **$100 million** bond, a significant financial requirement that shows how seriously the courts still treat this second case. ### A presidential immunity question still unresolved This **immunity defense** has not yet been reviewed by the **Supreme Court**, which means the legal battle between Carroll and Trump is far from over, despite the definitive closure of this first chapter concerning the **$5 million** verdict. I admit I cannot predict how the Court will rule on this separate immunity question, a complex area of law where recent jurisprudence has already granted broad protections to official presidential acts. ## The broader context of Trump's legal wins this week ### A packed end of term for the Supreme Court This decision comes as the **Supreme Court** issued, the same week, several **major rulings** favorable to the president's agenda, notably on **birthright citizenship**, **tariffs**, and the power to remove officials from **independent federal agencies**, according to **CBS News**. Against this backdrop of repeated institutional wins for the presidency, the refusal to hear the Carroll appeal stands out as a notable discordant note: on this specific personal matter, touching his individual conduct rather than his constitutional powers, Trump suffers an unambiguous defeat. ### This contrast reveals a limit on presidential power This **juxtaposition** between institutional victories and personal defeat illustrates an essential nuance: even a predominantly conservative Supreme Court favorable to an expansive view of executive power refuses to shield the president from the legal consequences of his personal conduct toward an ordinary citizen. This **distinction** between the constitutional powers of the presidency and the personal accountability of the man who holds it remains, in my view, one of the most important safeguards American democracy has left. ## Carroll's jury testimony, a pivotal moment ### A detailed account delivered under oath During the **2023** trial, **E. Jean Carroll** gave a detailed account of the alleged assault in the **Bergdorf Goodman** dressing room, testimony the jury found credible enough to support a civil judgment, despite the absence of direct witnesses to the scene described, according to trial records reported by several U.S. outlets. This kind of **testimony**, in a sexual assault case decades old, illustrates the particular challenges faced by victims who choose to come forward long after the fact, a delay that **New York** state law explicitly allowed through a temporary legal window enacted for this type of case. ### The law that made this trial possible New York's **Adult Survivors Act**, enacted in **2022**, opened an exceptional **legal window** allowing sexual assault victims to file suit even after the usual statute of limitations had expired, a law that directly enabled Carroll to bring her initial lawsuit. Without this specific **legislative reform**, this entire multi-year legal battle would likely never have taken place, a useful reminder of how important legal reforms are to survivors' access to justice. ## The political fallout of a personal defeat ### A precedent that touches the presidency itself This **case** is the **first personal matter** **Trump** has brought before the **Supreme Court** since returning to the **White House**, distinct from the many cases touching his constitutional powers as sitting president, according to observations published by **USA Today**. This legal distinction between personal and institutional matters is a reminder that even a very powerful president remains subject, for private conduct that predates his time in office, to the same civil legal mechanisms as any other American citizen. ### A signal for future plaintiffs facing power For **civil litigators** who represent victims against **powerful public figures**, this decision confirms that a sufficiently strong case, backed by credible testimony and corroborated evidence, can withstand years of legal challenges even when the defendant has virtually unlimited legal resources. This **lesson** extends well beyond the **Carroll** case alone and could shape the strategy of future plaintiffs facing defendants with considerable political or economic power. ## Conclusion: a verdict that still stands ### Accountability finally on the record After more than **three years** of proceedings, appeals, and delays, the original verdict against **Donald Trump** in the **E. Jean Carroll** case remains intact, implicitly confirmed by the unanimous silence of the **U.S. Supreme Court**. This **judicial testimony** is a reminder that no office, not even the highest in the land, should offer total immunity from the consequences of acts an ordinary citizen jury found to be established after hearing all the evidence presented. ### What this means for future victims who hesitate to come forward For anyone who still hesitates to file suit against a powerful figure for fear of never obtaining justice, this decision, though delayed, sends a signal: legal persistence, even against the most powerful man in the world, can lead to a formal and lasting record of the facts. **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 - [Los Angeles Times — Supreme Court refuses Trump's appeal of E. Jean Carroll's $5-million sexual abuse verdict, June 29, 2026](https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2026-06-29/supreme-court-refuses-trumps-appeal-of-e-jean-carrolls-5-million-sexual-abuse-verdict) - [SCOTUSblog — Supreme Court will not consider $5 million verdict against Trump, June 29, 2026](https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/supreme-court-will-not-consider-5-million-verdict-against-trump/) ### Secondary sources - [Politico — Supreme Court won't save Trump from paying E. Jean Carroll $5M, June 29, 2026](https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/29/e-jean-carroll-donald-trump-supreme-court-00979728) - [Axios — Supreme Court rejects Trump effort to toss $5 million E. Jean Carroll verdict, June 29, 2026](https://www.axios.com/2026/06/29/trump-carroll-supreme-court) - [Newsweek — Supreme Court refuses to shield Donald Trump in E. Jean Carroll case, June 29, 2026](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-supreme-court-rejects-carroll-verdict-appeal-12135405) - [CNN — An explosive appeal from Trump over E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse verdict stalls at the Supreme Court, June 22, 2026](https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/22/politics/supreme-court-e-jean-carroll-donald-trump-appeal) --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/temoignage-ce-que-le-silence-de-la-cour-supreme-dit-a-toutes-les-victimes