E. Jean Carroll vs. Trump: Defamation Case Heads to Supreme Court

The legal battle between E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump continues as the former president has asked the Supreme Court to review a civil case in which he was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming the writer. This move marks the latest chapter in a long and complex legal saga that has already resulted in two separate jury verdicts against Trump, totaling over $88 million in damages. The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear the case could have significant implications for defamation law and the First Amendment.

Background of the Case

E. Jean Carroll, a journalist and author, publicly accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in the mid-1990s in a Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan. She first made these allegations public in 2019, during Trump’s presidency, in an excerpt from her memoir. Trump denied the allegations, claiming he had never met Carroll and that she was “not his type.” These statements led Carroll to file a defamation lawsuit against Trump in November 2019.

In November 2022, Carroll filed a second lawsuit against Trump, this time including a claim of battery under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, which allows sexual assault victims to file civil suits even if the statute of limitations has expired. This second suit also included a renewed claim of defamation based on statements Trump made on Truth Social in October 2022.

The Trials and Verdicts

The second lawsuit went to trial in April 2023. The evidence presented included testimony from Carroll, two friends she confided in after the alleged assault, a photograph of Carroll with Trump from 1987, testimony from other women who had accused Trump of sexual assault, and the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape.

In May 2023, the jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages. The jury rejected Carroll’s claim that she was raped, but the judge later clarified that the jury’s finding of sexual abuse implied that Trump had “digitally raped her.”

Trump appealed this verdict, but his appeal was denied in December 2024. His request for a review by the full bench of judges was also rejected in June 2025.

A separate trial was held in January 2024 to determine the damages for Trump’s 2019 statements. The jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll an additional $83.3 million in damages. This amount included $7.3 million in compensatory damages, $11 million for reputational repair, and $65 million in punitive damages.

Trump’s Supreme Court Appeal

Now, Trump is asking the Supreme Court to review the initial $5 million verdict. His lawyers argue that the allegations were “propped up” by “indefensible evidentiary rulings” that allowed Carroll’s lawyers to present “highly inflammatory propensity evidence” against him. They also claim that the trial judge made errors by allowing the jury to hear testimony from other women who accused Trump of sexual assault and by allowing them to see the “Access Hollywood” tape.

Trump’s legal team is arguing that the lower courts have conflicted with other federal appeals courts on how evidence rules should be applied. They also claim that Carroll’s claims are a “politically motivated hoax.”

Implications for Defamation Law

This case raises important questions about defamation law and the First Amendment. Defamation, which includes both libel (written statements) and slander (spoken statements), is a statement that injures a third party’s reputation. To prove defamation, a plaintiff must show:

A false statement purporting to be fact;
Publication or communication of that statement to a third person;
Fault amounting to at least negligence; and
Damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person who is the subject of the statement.

However, the Supreme Court has established a higher standard for defamation claims involving public officials or public figures. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Court ruled that public figures must prove “actual malice,” meaning that the defamatory statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. This standard is intended to protect freedom of speech and encourage robust public discourse on matters of public concern.

The Carroll v. Trump case could potentially impact the application of the “actual malice” standard and the types of evidence that can be admitted in defamation cases. The Supreme Court’s decision could also affect the ability of public figures to sue for defamation and the amount of damages they can recover.

The “He Said, She Said” Dilemma

One of the key challenges in the Carroll v. Trump case is the lack of direct evidence of the alleged assault. As Trump’s lawyers have pointed out, there were no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation. The case relies heavily on Carroll’s testimony and the testimony of other women who have accused Trump of similar behavior.

This “he said, she said” scenario is common in sexual assault cases, and it can be difficult for juries to determine the truth. The admission of “propensity evidence,” or evidence of other similar acts, is often controversial, as it can be seen as unfairly prejudicial to the defendant.

Potential Outcomes and Advice

It is difficult to predict whether the Supreme Court will agree to hear the Carroll v. Trump case. The Court only accepts a small percentage of the cases that are appealed to it, and it typically only takes cases that involve significant legal issues or conflicts between lower courts.

If the Supreme Court does hear the case, it could rule in a number of ways. It could uphold the lower court verdicts, reverse them, or send the case back to the lower courts for further consideration.

Regardless of the outcome, the Carroll v. Trump case serves as a reminder of the importance of:

Careful communication: Individuals should be mindful of the statements they make about others, especially in public forums.
Respect for the legal process: The legal system provides a mechanism for resolving disputes, and it is important to respect the decisions of judges and juries.
Seeking legal advice: Anyone who is considering filing a defamation lawsuit or who has been accused of defamation should seek legal advice from a qualified attorney.

The E. Jean Carroll vs. Trump case is a complex and high-profile legal battle with potentially far-reaching implications. As it heads to the Supreme Court, it will be closely watched by legal experts, media organizations, and the public alike.