The nation’s highest court again turned down former President Donald Trump’s effort to reverse a civil judgment that awarded writer E. Jean Carroll $5 million in damages. On Monday the justices denied a petition that asked them to reconsider their earlier refusal to take up the case, joining a routine list of other denied petitions.
Background of the Carroll case
Carroll, a longtime magazine advice columnist and television host, testified that an encounter with Trump at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan during the mid‑1990s escalated into a violent sexual assault inside a dressing‑room. A New York federal jury in 2023 found Trump liable for sexual abuse and also concluded that he defamed Carroll when he publicly denied the accusations in 2022. The jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages, a sum Trump paid shortly after the Supreme Court first declined to hear the appeal in June.
Supreme Court’s action
While the Court occasionally grants rehearings, such actions are rare. In this instance, the justices issued a brief order denying the petition, leaving the lower‑court verdict unchanged. The decision does not address the merits of the case; it simply confirms that the Court will not review the matter at this time.
Related legal challenge
A separate petition remains pending before the Court. Trump and the Justice Department have asked the justices to dismiss an $83 million defamation verdict stemming from statements Trump made about Carroll in 2019 while serving as president. In that filing, Trump’s attorneys argue that presidential immunity shields him from civil suits based on statements made in office. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether it will consider that request.
Implications
The denial reinforces the standing of the 2023 verdict, which affirmed the jury’s findings of liability and the monetary award. For Carroll, the decision means the judgment remains enforceable, and the $5 million payment stands as a concrete acknowledgment of the harm she alleges. For Trump, the outcome underscores the limits of the Court’s willingness to revisit civil judgments that have already been affirmed by lower courts.
Legal analysts note that the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant a rehearing is consistent with its recent pattern of limiting its docket to cases with broad legal significance. The pending defamation case may still present a constitutional question about the scope of presidential immunity, but no timetable has been set for a decision.
Both cases continue to attract public attention, reflecting ongoing debates about accountability, the role of the judiciary, and the legal standards that apply to public figures. As the litigation proceeds, the outcomes will likely influence future civil actions involving alleged misconduct by high‑profile individuals.
Original reporting: Tampa Free Press — read the source article.
