US Supreme Court rejects Trump’s attempt to overturn sexual assault judgment

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against former President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn a $5 million jury verdict awarded to E. Jean Carroll, a former magazine columnist who accused him of sexual assault and defamation. The decision, announced on June 29, 2026, marks yet another setback in Trump’s ongoing legal battles over allegations stemming from a 1996 incident. The court declined to review the case, effectively allowing the 2023 jury’s finding that Trump sexually assaulted and defamed Carroll to stand. While the court did not provide reasoning for its decision, the ruling aligns with previous judicial affirmations of the verdict, which were upheld by appellate courts in late 2024.

The case began in 2019 when Carroll, then 69, published an excerpt from her memoir alleging that Trump had raped her in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan. She described the incident as occurring in 1996, though Trump denied the accusation, claiming it was based on false memories. In 2022, Trump further dismissed her claims on social media, calling them a “hoax” and a “con job.” This prompted Carroll to file a civil lawsuit against Trump in federal court in Manhattan. A jury in 2023 found Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation, awarding her $5 million in damages. However, the jury did not find that he had raped her, as she had initially claimed.

Following the initial verdict, Trump attempted to appeal the decision, arguing that the trial judge improperly allowed jurors to consider evidence of his past sexual misconduct, which he claimed was irrelevant and prejudicial. His legal team also contended that the case was politically motivated, asserting that Carroll had waited over two decades to make the accusations, likely to gain political advantage and financial benefit. These arguments were rejected by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024, which affirmed the jury’s findings and upheld the verdict.

In addition to the sexual assault case, Carroll successfully sued Trump for defamation, securing an $83.3 million verdict in 2024. The court ruled that Trump’s public denials of her allegations constituted defamation, particularly given the context of his prior denial of the sexual assault claims. This ruling was also upheld on appeal, reinforcing the legal consequences of Trump’s public statements regarding the case.

The Trump administration has responded to these developments with continued defiance. In a social media post, Trump criticized the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the case, labeling it a “Fake Case” brought by someone he claimed he had never met. He vowed to continue fighting the legal challenges, referring to them as part of a broader effort to “weaponize” the law against him. His legal team has framed the case as a form of “lawfare”—a strategy where legal processes are used to undermine political opponents.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice has initiated a criminal investigation into Carroll, examining whether she committed perjury during depositions related to the civil cases. According to reports from CNN and The New York Times, the probe focuses on whether Carroll misrepresented her financial situation, specifically whether she received external funding for her legal costs. It was later revealed that billionaire Reid Hoffman contributed to her legal expenses, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest. This investigation is part of a larger pattern of the Trump administration using the justice system to scrutinize critics and rivals.

As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the outcome of these cases remains significant for both Trump and Carroll. For Trump, the rejection of his appeals represents a growing body of legal precedents that hold him accountable for his actions, even after leaving office. For Carroll, the victories underscore the possibility of holding powerful figures accountable for their behavior, despite the immense resources and influence such individuals often possess. The next steps in these cases remain uncertain, but the implications for legal accountability and political discourse are clear.