The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a request from former President Donald Trump to overturn a $5 million jury verdict against him in a civil case involving allegations of sexual abuse and defamation. The court’s decision, made in a brief and unexplained order, means that the judgment remains intact. The case centers on E Jean Carroll, a former advice columnist for Elle magazine, who accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan in the mid-1990s. She further claimed that Trump defamed her when he dismissed her allegations in 2022.
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, Trump’s legal team argued that the lower court had improperly allowed testimony from other women who had previously accused Trump of sexual misconduct. They contended that such evidence violated federal rules regarding the admissibility of evidence in trials. Additionally, they claimed that the jury was influenced by inflammatory rulings that undermined the fairness of the proceedings. However, these arguments were not accepted by the Supreme Court, which chose not to intervene in the matter.
The case dates back to 2019 when Carroll published excerpts from her memoir detailing the alleged assault. At that time, Trump denied the claims, asserting that she had fabricated them to gain attention and profit from her book. He reiterated these denials in 2022 when he labeled her allegations as a “hoax” and a “con job” on social media. Despite these dismissals, a jury in 2023 ruled in favor of Carroll, finding Trump liable for both the alleged sexual abuse and the subsequent defamation.
The appellate court in Manhattan upheld the verdict in 2024, citing evidence such as Trump’s remarks on the Access Hollywood tape from the 2016 presidential campaign, which depicted him boasting about his sexual conquests. These comments were deemed indicative of a broader pattern of behavior that aligned with the allegations against him. In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump expressed disappointment and criticized the lawsuit as a “Fake Case.” He vowed to continue challenging what he described as a form of “Weaponization and Lawfare” aimed at undermining him personally and politically.
Carroll’s legal representatives had urged the Supreme Court to decline jurisdiction over the case, arguing that the testimonies of other accusers were relevant due to the similarity of their allegations. They emphasized that the judicial decisions made by the trial judge were consistent with practices observed in courts nationwide. Furthermore, they highlighted that the evidence supporting the verdict was robust and appropriately admitted according to legal standards.
Beyond the $5 million verdict, Carroll secured an additional $83.3 million in damages following a separate defamation trial. Trump is currently appealing this larger sum, although it has not yet reached the Supreme Court. His legal battles have included successfully contesting a significant civil fraud penalty imposed by a New York court, which was later overturned on appeal. However, the Supreme Court recently granted him broad immunity from criminal prosecution, a move that was later narrowed in scope when it refused to block his sentencing in a New York hush money case.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear Trump’s appeal marks a continuation of its role in adjudicating high-profile cases that intersect with the former president’s legal challenges. As the court continues to issue rulings on major cases throughout the term, the outcome of these decisions will likely influence the trajectory of Trump’s ongoing legal disputes and his broader political landscape.
3 reports
RTÉ NewsState / PublicCenterFactual 90Objective 857 days agoThe U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear President Donald Trump's appeal regarding a $5 million verdict awarded to E Jean Carroll, a former Elle magazine columnist, in a civil lawsuit alleging sexual abuse and defamation. The court dismissed Trump's argument that the trial was unfair due to the judge allowing jurors to consider evidence of his past sexual misconduct. The case stems from Carroll's 2019 memoir excerpt where she accused Trump of rape in 1996. Trump denied the claims and argued that she lied to damage his reputation and gain personal benefit. The Department of Justice is investigating Carroll for potential perjury related to her lawsuits against Trump. In a separate case, the court upheld an $83.3 million verdict against Trump for defamation over his initial denial of her claims.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the legal proceedings and outcomes without overtly favoring either side. It reports both Trump's defense arguments and the court's decisions impartially. While the subject involves a high-profile political figure and ongoing legal battles, the framing remains neutral, focusing事实
Why these scores (Factual 90 · Objective 85): High factual accuracy with clear alignment to cross-source consensus. The article presents the facts neutrally, detailing the court's rejection of the appeal, the background of the case, and Trump's denial of the allegations without overt emotional language. It maintains a balanced perspective.
The Irish TimesIndependent🔒CenterFactual 88Objective 757 days agoThe U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear former President Donald Trump's appeal to overturn a $5 million verdict in favor of E Jean Carroll, a former magazine columnist. A jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll, though they did not find rape. Lower courts upheld the verdict, rejecting Trump's claims that the trial was unfair due to the judge allowing evidence of his past misconduct. Trump has been fighting the case since 2019, when Carroll accused him of rape in a 1996 incident. His legal team argued that the trial judge improperly introduced old, unverified allegations, violating evidentiary rules. The Department of Justice is investigating Carroll for potential perjury related to her lawsuits against Trump. Trump criticized the court's decision, calling the case a 'Fake Case' and accusing opponents of using 'lawfare' against him.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the legal proceedings and outcomes objectively, detailing both sides of the dispute without overtly endorsing either position. It reports on Trump's legal challenges and the judicial rulings without showing clear ideological bias. While the subject involves high-profile politics
Why these scores (Factual 88 · Objective 75): Factual content is largely accurate and consistent with other sources, covering the Supreme Court's decision and the details of the case. However, the inclusion of Trump's social media comments and his description of the case as 'Fake Case' introduces some subjective framing, affecting objectivity.
TheJournal.ieIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 707 days agoThe U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request by former President Donald Trump to overturn a $5 million verdict against him in a sexual abuse case involving writer E Jean Carroll. Trump's legal team argued that the verdict was based on 'highly inflammatory' evidentiary rulings, including the testimony of two other women who alleged past sexual misconduct. The court did not provide an explanation for its decision, which is typical for such cases. Trump has denied all allegations, and his attorneys claimed the judge violated federal evidence rules. Meanwhile, Carroll's lawyers argued that the testimonies of the other women were relevant due to similarities in the allegations. The case highlights ongoing legal battles involving Trump, with multiple judgments against him still pending.
Bias read (Center): While the article discusses a politically sensitive issue involving a former president, the framing remains largely neutral. It presents both sides of the argument—Trump's legal team emphasizing procedural issues and Carroll's legal team highlighting relevance and consistency with judicial precedent
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 70): Factual accuracy is strong, aligning with cross-source consensus on the Supreme Court rejecting Trump's appeal and the $5 million verdict. However, the article includes emotionally charged language like 'mistreatment of a president' and mentions Trump's nomination of an attorney, which may introduce
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
Ireland
