The nation’s highest court again turned down former President Donald Trump’s effort to nullify a civil judgment against him. On Monday, the Supreme Court denied a petition asking it to review a New York jury’s $5 million verdict that found Trump liable for sexual abuse of advice columnist E. Jean Carroll and for defaming her when he denied the allegation.
Background of the case
Carroll, a longtime advice columnist and former television talk‑show host, testified at a 2023 trial that Trump assaulted her in a dressing‑room at the Manhattan department store Bergdorf Goodman during the mid‑1990s. The jury concluded that Trump’s actions constituted sexual abuse and that his later statements denying the encounter were defamatory.
Supreme Court’s action
Trump’s legal team filed a petition seeking the Court’s review of the judgment, arguing that the case should not proceed. The Court’s denial of the petition means the lower‑court decision stands, and Trump must satisfy the $5 million judgment. The justices also declined to hear several other petitions filed on the same day, a move that is uncommon but not unprecedented.
Further litigation pending
In addition to the $5 million case, Trump and the Justice Department have asked the Supreme Court to overturn a separate verdict that awarded Carroll $83 million in damages for defamation related to statements he made in 2019 while serving as president. The Court has not yet ruled on that request.
Trump’s response
President Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing in the Carroll matter. His attorneys maintain that he is immune from civil suits arising from statements made in his official capacity as president, a claim the Court has yet to address in the larger $83 million case.
Implications
The denial underscores the Court’s reluctance to intervene in ongoing civil judgments absent compelling legal questions. It also leaves the $5 million judgment enforceable, meaning the former president must pay the amount awarded to Carroll.
Legal analysts note that while the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case does not set a precedent on presidential immunity, it does signal that the justices are not inclined to reopen settled civil matters without clear constitutional issues.
Original reporting: 40/29 / KHBS (NW Arkansas) — read the source article.
