Supreme Court rebukes Trump AGAIN as he attempts to claw back $5.6 million in E Jean Carroll sex abuse case
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
The US Supreme Court has again ruled against Donald Trump, this time rejecting his attempt to overturn a $5.6 million judgment awarded to writer E Jean Carroll in her sexual abuse and defamation case against him. The ruling marks another setback for Trump in his long-running legal battle with Carroll, who successfully sued him after he denied her allegation that he sexually assaulted her in the 1990s and then disparaged her publicly.
The case is one of two defamation actions Carroll brought against Trump, stemming from his repeated public denials of her account. Trump had sought to have the nation's highest court intervene to reduce or reverse the damages award, but the justices declined to disturb the lower court's findings, leaving the multimillion-dollar judgment in place.
- Supreme Court rejects Trump's bid to overturn E Jean Carroll verdict.
- $5.6 million judgment in sexual abuse/defamation case stands.
- Latest setback in Trump's long-running legal fight with Carroll.
New here? Start with this
The Supreme Court has again turned down Donald Trump's bid to overturn a $5.6 million judgment he owes writer E Jean Carroll. Carroll, a former magazine columnist, accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in a New York department store in the 1990s. When Trump publicly denied the allegation and disparaged her, she sued him for defamation, and a jury found in her favour.
Carroll actually brought two separate defamation lawsuits against Trump over different statements he made denying her account, and both resulted in substantial damages awards against him. Trump has repeatedly tried to challenge these rulings through the courts, arguing the damages should be reduced or thrown out, but has been unsuccessful at each stage, including now at the Supreme Court.
This matters because it is one of several major legal cases involving Trump that have tested how the courts treat a sitting or former president, and because the outcome leaves him liable for a significant financial judgment despite his efforts to overturn it.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who welcome the Supreme Court's decision argue that a civil jury, having heard the evidence, found Mr Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, and that the judicial system worked exactly as it should by allowing that verdict to stand after full appellate review. They contend that repeated public denials which a court found to be knowingly false and damaging to Ms Carroll's reputation warrant substantial compensation, and that no individual, regardless of political office, should be shielded from the ordinary consequences of civil liability. For them, the Court's refusal to intervene affirms the principle that the legal process, not political status, should determine such outcomes.
The case against
Those sympathetic to Mr Trump's position argue that the damages award is extraordinarily large for a case resting on decades-old, contested allegations without corroborating physical evidence, and that the cumulative effect of overlapping jury verdicts risks being disproportionate to any harm caused. They contend that a public figure's vigorous denial of an accusation he believes to be false ought to receive robust protection, since chilling such denials could deter anyone accused from defending themselves publicly. For them, the refusal to review the case leaves unresolved genuine questions about whether the process and the scale of the award were fair, rather than reflecting any conclusion about the underlying facts.