The Supreme Court on Monday declined President Donald Trump's latest request to revisit a $5.6 million judgment awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll, stemming from her sexual abuse and defamation lawsuit. This decision, which appeared on the court's orders list without explanation or disclosure of individual justice votes, marks the second time the high court has refused to review President Trump's challenge to this specific judgment.
The legal proceedings began in 2022 when E. Jean Carroll filed a lawsuit against President Trump, alleging that he sexually assaulted her in a New York City department store in the mid-1990s. Carroll further claimed that President Trump defamed her after she publicly disclosed the accusation. In 2023, a federal jury found President Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, subsequently awarding Carroll $5 million in damages. President Trump has consistently denied Carroll's allegations.
Following the jury's verdict, President Trump's legal team pursued various avenues to challenge the judgment. The Supreme Court had previously declined to hear his initial appeal of the lower court ruling in June. The petition for rehearing represented an unusual procedural step, as it sought to revive a case that the Supreme Court had already decided not to take up. For the rehearing request to proceed, at least four of the nine justices would have needed to agree to reconsider the matter. Monday's decision effectively closes this particular legal avenue for President Trump regarding the $5.6 million judgment.
A central argument advanced by President Trump's attorneys in their rehearing petition focused on the principle of presidential immunity. They sought to raise questions about whether statements President Trump made in 2019, while serving his first term in the White House, should be protected under such immunity. This argument aimed to draw upon the Supreme Court's landmark 2024 ruling in *Trump v. United States*. In that case, the justices held that presidents possess absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions falling within their core constitutional powers and at least presumptive immunity for other official acts.
While the *Trump v. United States* decision dealt specifically with criminal prosecution, President Trump's legal team contended that the reasoning and principles articulated in that ruling should extend to civil litigation, such as the defamation aspect of Carroll's case. They argued that their rehearing petition would "present important questions concerning Presidential immunity for statements President Trump made in 2019, while serving as President," suggesting that the scope of presidential immunity in civil matters warranted further judicial review. However, the Supreme Court's refusal to reconsider the Carroll case means this argument was not taken up in relation to the $5.6 million judgment.
Carroll's attorneys have maintained that President Trump has repeatedly attempted to challenge the judgment across different courts without success. President Trump has already remitted $5 million in damages, along with accrued interest, in connection with this case.
Despite this latest Supreme Court rejection, President Trump's broader legal disputes with E. Jean Carroll are not entirely concluded. He is separately challenging an approximately $83 million defamation judgment awarded to Carroll in another case. That larger judgment arose from statements President Trump made about Carroll after she publicly accused him of assault. According to reports, the Supreme Court is expected to consider President Trump's appeal involving this separate $83 million judgment later this year, indicating that the legal battles between the two parties will continue to evolve. The current decision, however, firmly establishes that the $5.6 million judgment will stand.
