COMMENTARY: E. Jean Carroll — The Appeal Rejected 15 Times That Haunts Trump

Maxime Marquette

2026-06-26 22:15:06

Sexual Assault and Defamation: Two Charges Upheld

In May 2023, a New York jury ruled that Donald Trump was civilly liable for sexual assault against E. Jean Carroll in connection with an incident that occurred in a fitting room at Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan in the mid-1990s. The jury also found him liable for defamation: Trump, in an October 2022 post on Truth Social, had denied the allegations, claiming that Carroll had fabricated the story to sell her book. These two charges resulted in a $5 million judgment. Carroll filed this lawsuit in 2022, taking advantage of a legislative window opened by the State of New York that allows victims of sexual assault to file civil claims for past incidents.

It is important to clarify this point precisely: the jury did not find that the act constituted sexual assault with penetration as defined by New York criminal law. The jury found that it constituted sexual assault, which remains a serious and well-documented conclusion. Trump has consistently denied the allegations. But contesting the case before a jury and losing is a legal reality that neither time nor repeated denials can erase.

The Second Trial: $83 Million for Systemic Defamation

The first trial—the one in 2022—concerned Trump’s statements in 2019, in which he denied knowing Carroll and claimed she was “not his type.” This trial, which was heard second, resulted in an even heavier verdict: $83.3 million in January 2024. The jury had taken into account the repeated, deliberate, and malicious nature of Trump’s attacks on Carroll’s credibility. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this verdict, calling it reasonable in light of the extraordinary and serious facts of the case.

Trump sought to invoke presidential immunity in this second case, arguing that his statements were made in the course of his official duties. The appellate judges rejected this argument, noting that Trump had belatedly abandoned this defense and that the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling on presidential immunity did not apply to civil acts that occurred prior to his presidency.

$83 million is a sum that speaks volumes about the conviction of a jury of ordinary citizens in the face of acts described as malicious and repeated. I am not here to replay the trial. But to ignore what twelve jurors concluded after hearing the evidence would be a form of intellectual dishonesty that I refuse to accept.

The Mechanics of the 15 Postponements: What the Court’s Silence Reveals

Rescheduled—but not rescheduled as usual

There is a technical distinction that legal experts emphasize strongly. When the Supreme Court reviews a petition for certiorari, it may “re-list” it—that is, postpone it to a future conference while still discussing it. This is common. This often happens when the justices are deliberating, when one of them is drafting a dissenting opinion on the denial, or when the case is linked to another pending case. But the Carroll case does not fall into this category. It has been “rescheduled”—which means it is not even formally discussed at the conference. It is removed from the agenda before the meeting.

The first time this happened was on February 26, 2026, the day before a scheduled conference. The appeal was withdrawn without explanation. Since then, the scenario has repeated itself fourteen more times. Law professor Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court expert, offered the most direct criticism: “What’s strange here isn’t just that the Court has rescheduled one of the Carroll cases 15 times; it’s the lack of a convincing justification for doing so.”

Two hypotheses, each worse than the last

Vladeck identifies two possible explanations. The first: the Court is waiting for the second appeal—the one regarding the 83 million—to be formally filed, so it can review both cases together. Trump, in fact, wrote to the Court on June 2, 2026, to inform it that he would file this second appeal within the following month, suggesting that the two petitions be considered jointly. The problem, Vladeck points out, is that the two cases raise very different legal issues. Linking them together is not justified on the merits of the law.

The second explanation is more uncomfortable: the Court would be granting President Trump preferential treatment—a form of institutional deference that would not have been extended to any other petitioner. Vladeck made this clear, noting that this would be problematic because the case concerns acts committed while Trump was not president. No functional immunity should apply here. And yet, the delays keep piling up.

The U.S. Supreme Court is an institution I deeply respect, but respect does not mean blindness. When a petition is postponed fifteen times without explanation, while the petitioner occupies the White House, the question of judicial independence becomes legitimate. And it deserves a frank answer, not euphemisms.

Trump's Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Evidence Deemed Too Damaging

The bulk of Trump’s argument centers on issues of evidence admissibility. His lawyers contend that Judge Lewis Kaplan erred in allowing the jury to hear testimony from two other women—Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff—who claimed that Trump had sexually assaulted them years earlier. According to the Trump team, this evidence of a propensity for predatory sexual behavior is too distant in time and too prejudicial to be admitted. Federal Rule of Evidence 415, which permits this type of evidence in civil sexual assault cases, should have been tempered by Rule 403, which requires a balancing of probative and prejudicial values.

Trump is also challenging the admission of the 2005 “Access Hollywood” audio recording, in which he is heard saying that, as a star, he can do whatever he wants to women, including “grabbing them by the pussy.” Judge Kaplan had ruled that this evidence was relevant to establishing that Trump had, in the past, engaged in non-consensual contact with women. Trump’s attorneys argue that this decision irreparably influenced the jury’s verdict against their client.

The Argument of Presidential Dignity and Its Limits

In their final brief filed in January 2026, Trump’s attorneys added a practical, almost philosophical argument: “It is deeply damaging to the fabric of our Republic that President Trump, in the midst of a historic presidency, must divert his attention from his unique and singular duties as head of the executive branch to continue fighting these false and decades-old allegations.” They concluded: “This mistreatment of a president cannot be tolerated.”

This line of argument is indicative of a broader strategy. It does not refute the facts found by the jury. Rather, it asks the nation’s highest court to recognize that the presidency confers a special dignity that should shield its holder from such proceedings. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed this argument with remarkable clarity: “No one is above the law, including the president.” But Trump’s arguments were crafted for a different audience—the six conservative justices of the Supreme Court.

I understand the political argument. What I cannot accept is the idea that election to the presidency should nullify a jury’s verdict based on facts dating back to 1996. If this principle were accepted, it would no longer be a state governed by the rule of law; it would be an elective monarchy.

The Second Circuit's Response: A Solid Body of Case Law

A unanimous decision by the appellate judges

As early as December 2024, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had unanimously upheld the $5 million verdict. A panel of three judges, all appointed by Democratic presidents, ruled that Judge Kaplan had not erred in admitting the disputed evidence. The court articulated its reasoning in no uncertain terms: “The court’s sole task was to determine whether a jury could reasonably conclude, based on the preponderance of the evidence, that Trump had committed an act of sexual assault.”

In June 2025, the court denied Trump’s request for a full panel review. Trump then appealed the case to the Supreme Court in November 2025. The Second Circuit had also ruled that even if certain evidence had been wrongly admitted—an assumption the judges did not accept—it would not have changed the outcome of the trial, given how strong the evidence in Carroll’s favor was. Carroll’s attorneys had called about ten witnesses. The Trump team called none.

The $83 Million Case: A Procedural Fortress

In the $83 million case, the Second Circuit was even more direct in September 2025. The court characterized Trump’s conduct as “exceptionally egregious, perhaps unprecedented,” justifying substantial punitive damages. Trump had sought to substitute the federal government for himself as the defendant—a maneuver that would have rendered the case void, as the United States cannot be sued for defamation. The judges rejected this argument, noting that it had been raised fifteen months after the judgment, far too late to be admissible.

In April 2026, the full Second Circuit denied a request for en banc review by a vote of twelve judges to three. The three dissenting judges—Menashi, Park, and Livingston, all appointed by Republican presidents—believed that the argument regarding presidential immunity warranted further consideration. It is this minority vote that Trump is using to build his next appeal to the Supreme Court.

Three out of fifteen conservative judges voted to grant a rehearing. That is not a majority. It is a political signal to the Supreme Court, not a compelling legal argument. I refuse to confuse the two.

The DOJ vs. Carroll: Investigation or Retaliation?

The 2022 Testimony and Billionaire Reid Hoffman

In May 2026, CNN exclusively revealed that the Department of Justice had launched a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll. The purpose: to determine whether Carroll had committed perjury during a 2022 deposition in which she claimed she received no outside funding for her lawsuits. It later emerged that billionaire Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn and a well-known Democratic donor, had funded part of her legal fees through a Chicago-based nonprofit organization.

Carroll, now 82, explained that she had simply forgotten about this funding. Her attorneys had informed the judge and Trump’s attorneys of the existence of this funding two weeks before the trial. Judge Kaplan concluded that there was no reason to doubt Carroll’s credibility and barred any further questions on the subject. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had also previously reviewed and rejected the argument that Carroll had lied.

Chicago, Blanche, and the Institutional Conflict of Interest

The investigation was assigned to federal prosecutors in Chicago, not in New York, where the events took place. The reasoning given was that Hoffman operates a nonprofit organization in Illinois. But legal experts interviewed by NPR emphasized just how extraordinarily unusual this arrangement is. A prosecutor from a district outside the jurisdiction of the events is called upon to examine a case that has no organic connection to his jurisdiction.

Attorney General Todd Blanche—Trump’s former personal attorney in the same Carroll case—has recused himself from the case. He is not participating in the discussions. The investigation is being managed by other officials in the office of the deputy attorney general. Former DOJ officials have described the entire process as unprecedented and noted that it is not illegal for a third party to fund a plaintiff’s legal fees.

I cannot say with certainty that this investigation is purely political. But I can look at the facts: the DOJ under a sitting president is launching a criminal investigation against the woman who defeated him in civil court, under the direction of a prosecution office with no connection to the facts, for an alleged perjury charge that the appeals court has already reviewed and dismissed. The geography alone is an admission.

The Two Carroll Cases: A Complex Procedural Framework

Carroll I and Carroll II: Two Lawsuits, One Woman

To understand the situation before the Supreme Court, it is important to distinguish between Carroll I and Carroll II. Carroll I is the defamation lawsuit filed in 2019 following Trump’s statements denying that he knew her. That case went to trial second (January 2024) and resulted in an $83 million verdict. Carroll II is the lawsuit filed in 2022 under New York’s Sexual Assault Victims’ Law, which covered both the 1996 assault and the defamatory statements made in 2022. This second trial was the first to take place (May 2023) and resulted in a $5 million verdict.

It is Carroll II—the $5 million verdict—that is currently the subject of Trump’s petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. Carroll I—the $83 million verdict—has not yet formally reached the Supreme Court, but Trump announced on June 2, 2026, that he would file it within the month. If the Court agrees to hear both cases jointly, the decision on whether to accept or reject them would be postponed until the fall of 2026, or even until the next judicial term.

Why Combining the Two Appeals Is Questionable on Merits

Steve Vladeck highlighted the central problem with this strategy: the two cases raise fundamentally different legal issues. Carroll II concerns the admissibility of propensity evidence (Rules 413, 415, and 403). Carroll I concerns presidential immunity for statements made during the first term and the Westfall Act, which would allow the federal government to replace Trump as the defendant. These are two distinct bodies of law, with no significant overlap.

Linking the two petitions does not serve legal clarity. It serves to buy time. Every additional month is one more month before Trump has to pay—or definitively resolve his legal fate with regard to Carroll. The court has, in fact, granted Trump the right to stay the enforcement of the $83 million judgment pending the appeal process, in exchange for a $7.4 million bond to cover additional interest.

What I see in Trump’s strategy is a race against the institutional clock. Multiplying legal proceedings, linking cases without justification, appointing a compliant DOJ—all of this aims to wear down the judicial system before it can strike back. It’s a strategy of legal attrition. And it’s working, at least in the short term.

The Evidence Argument: Access Hollywood and the Testimonies

The Access Hollywood Tape: Relevant or Prejudicial?

The core of Trump’s appeal centers on the evidence admitted at the 2023 trial. The 2005 Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump says verbatim: “When you’re a star, you can do anything. […] Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything,” was admitted by Judge Kaplan. Kaplan ruled that this recording established a likelihood that Trump had engaged in nonconsensual sexual conduct with women in the past. Trump’s attorneys argue that this evidence is too old, too prejudicial, and that Rule 403 required its exclusion.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals categorically rejected this argument. It concluded that even if the judge had erred in admitting certain evidence, that error was harmless given the overall strength of Carroll’s case. About ten witnesses had corroborated Carroll’s account. Trump’s team had not presented any witnesses to refute these facts. The jury’s verdict would have been the same without this disputed evidence.

The Testimonies of Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff

The two women whose testimony is being challenged by Trump are Jessica Leeds, who claims that Trump sexually assaulted her on an airplane in 1979, and Natasha Stoynoff, a journalist for People Magazine, who claims that he assaulted her at his Mar-a-Lago residence in 2005. Trump has consistently denied these allegations. His lawyers argue that alleged incidents so long ago and with no direct connection to the Carroll case cannot be used to establish a behavioral “propensity.”

The Trump-appointed judges Menashi and Park, in their dissenting opinion in the Second Circuit, had expressed doubts about the rigor with which Rule 415 had been applied. It is on this dissent that the Trump team is building its argument before the Supreme Court: if judges from the same court have doubts, the nine Supreme Court justices should decide the matter. But a dissent by two out of fifteen judges does not constitute precedent. It is a minority opinion.

I am not a lawyer. But I observe this: when a jury hears ten witnesses from one side and none from the other, the question of circumstantial evidence becomes a philosophical one. What that jury judged was the big picture. And the big picture was overwhelming.

The Role of the DOJ: Substitution as Defendant and Intervention in Court

The Westfall Maneuver: The Government in Trump’s Place

In the Carroll I case (the $83 million case), Trump’s strategy took an unprecedented institutional turn. His team asked the DOJ to substitute the federal government for Trump as the defendant, invoking the Westfall Act. This law grants immunity to federal officials for acts performed in the course of their official duties. If the government were to step in for Trump, the case would be dismissed—the United States cannot be sued for defamation.

The DOJ did indeed argue this position before the Supreme Court in May 2026, filing a brief in Trump’s favor. But the appeals court had already rejected this attempt: “Trump and the government forfeited any right to seek substitution” by failing to request it when the case was remanded to the trial court. A valid argument in principle but too late in practice.

The Conflict Between the DOJ and Judicial Independence

According to several former legal officials, the DOJ’s intervention on behalf of a sitting president in a civil case in which he is personally implicated is a highly problematic use of federal resources. The DOJ is supposed to defend the public interest, not the president’s personal interests. The fact that Blanche has been recused does not resolve the fundamental problem: the line between Trump’s interests and those of the federal government has been deliberately blurred.

For Carroll, this convergence between the White House, the DOJ, and Trump’s defense team represents systemic pressure on the judicial system. His attorneys declined to comment on the DOJ’s intervention but pointed out that the appeals court had already ruled that this belated substitution was inadmissible and would not alter the applicable law.

Using the Department of Justice to defend oneself in personal civil cases crosses an institutional red line. I say this without bias: if Biden had done the same thing, I would have said exactly the same thing. Institutions are not personal tools. Not in a democracy.

What This Reveals About Trump and U.S. Institutions

Trump: A Necessary Evil or a Structural Threat?

I am a pro-Western columnist. I believe that America, despite its contradictions, is an indispensable pillar of the liberal world order. And as such, I can acknowledge that Trump, on certain geopolitical issues—pressuring NATO, taking a firm stance against China, and taking a hard line against Iran—has acted in a way that serves Western interests. He is, in many respects, a necessary evil for a West that had lost its sense of strategic competition.

But “necessary evil” does not mean “untouchable.” The Carroll case highlights a deep and troubling trend: Trump systematically uses the institutional levers of the state to neutralize court rulings that go against him. This is not a legitimate defense in court. It is a war of attrition against the institutions themselves. And this war has victims—not just E. Jean Carroll.

The message sent to victims of sexual assault

Carroll is 82 years old. She has been fighting since 2019. She has won twice before a jury. Today, she is the target of a federal criminal investigation. If this country sends the message to victims of sexual assault that winning a jury trial is not enough—that all it takes is for their assailant to be elected president for the DOJ to turn its weapon against them—then that is a civilizational regression that the West cannot afford.

The independence of the judiciary is not a democratic luxury. It is the foundation. When a sitting president combines inexplicable delays at the Supreme Court, the DOJ’s intervention in his own civil cases, and a criminal investigation against his accuser, he is testing the system’s resilience. The question is whether the system will hold.

I don’t know how this story will end. What deeply troubles me is that the outcome depends as much on politics as on the law. And when politics dictates the law, we are no longer in a state governed by the rule of law. We are in something else entirely.

Carroll and His Lawyers' Response

Roberta Kaplan: Confidence on Display, a Long Battle Ahead

Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s attorney, stated in October 2025 that she was “fairly confident” the Supreme Court would not take the case. Her argument: issues regarding the admissibility of evidence in civil cases generally fall outside the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. “There is nothing in this case that warrants the Supreme Court’s attention,” she asserted. She emphasized that even if the judge had made an error, it was not a decisive one, which greatly diminished the Court’s interest in the case.

Carroll and her attorneys declined to comment on the most recent appeal. But Carroll’s camp has maintained a consistent position from the start: the evidence was strong, the jury deliberated freely, and no procedural maneuver should overturn that verdict. The $5 million is currently held in a court account pending the final decision. Carroll has said she plans to donate a large portion of it to organizations advocating for women’s rights and voting rights—“causes that Donald Trump hates.”

An 82-Year-Old Woman Facing the State Apparatus

E. Jean Carroll is 82 years old. She was a renowned columnist who wrote a relationship advice column for Elle magazine for decades. She decided to speak out publicly in 2019. Since then, her life has been consumed by lawsuits, appeals, presidential denials, and now a criminal investigation. In February 2026, she received—without having requested it—a campaign email from Trump titled “Happy Valentine’s Day, E. Jean!” declaring that Trump loved her and that she surely loved him in return. She shared the screenshot with these words: “Yes, we live in a crazy world.”

This grotesque detail says it all about the atmosphere in which this case is unfolding. On one hand, there are solid jury verdicts upheld on appeal. On the other, a president who denies everything, brings in his DOJ, and sends unsolicited Valentine’s Day emails to the woman who defeated him in court. This isn’t politics. It’s institutionalized harassment.

I’m not putting myself in Carroll’s shoes. I can’t. But I think of all the women watching this case and silently weighing whether it’s worth speaking up. The message being sent to them right now is chilling.

"Law & Order" Style: When the Trump Team Presents False Evidence

A fictional scenario used as a legal argument

In February 2026, Mother Jones revealed a startling detail: Trump’s attorney, Justin D. Smith, had claimed in his petition to the Supreme Court that Carroll’s allegations “corresponded precisely” to the plot of a 2012 episode of the television series Law & Order: SVU. The episode in question, titled “Theatre Tricks,” revolved, according to Smith, around a “business tycoon who fantasizes about a sexual assault in a Bergdorf Goodman fitting room.”

The reality: the episode in question does not match this description. The fitting-room scene involved a notorious New York judge, not a tycoon. And the acts in the fitting room were consensual and premeditated. A production executive for the show had also told CNN in 2019 that the series had “no correlation whatsoever” with Carroll’s allegations. Submitting false information to a federal court can constitute a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison.

Conspiracy Theory as a Legal Strategy

This attempt to rewrite the narrative is part of a broader strategy: to transform the Carroll case into a fictional conspiracy against Trump. The same logic drives the “Access Hollywood” argument, the attacks on Hoffman’s funding, and the DOJ’s criminal investigation. It all fits together: if Carroll invented her story based on a TV series, if she lied about her funding, if she is a pawn of the anti-Trump network—then the jury verdicts become errors to be corrected, not truths to be respected.

But juries do not deliberate on conspiracy theories. They deliberate on evidence. And the evidence presented to two different juries led to two separate verdicts of liability. Smith and his colleagues can multiply their arguments before the Supreme Court. What they cannot erase is what twelve citizens concluded after hearing everything.

Using a misinterpretation of an episode of a television series as an argument before the U.S. Supreme Court is, frankly, an insult to the institution. It speaks volumes about the legal quality of Trump’s defenses in this case.

Upcoming Schedule: Fall 2026 and the Unknowns

Decision on Carroll II Postponed Until Fall

According to the letter filed on June 2, 2026, by Trump’s attorneys, the appeal regarding the $83 million (Carroll I) is expected to be formally filed with the Supreme Court in the coming weeks. If the Court decides to review both petitions jointly—as Trump’s attorneys suggest—the decision to grant or deny either one would most likely be postponed until fall 2026, or even until the 2026–2027 judicial term, which begins in October.

This timeline is deliberately favorable to Trump. The longer the uncertainty lasts, the longer the payment is deferred. The $7.4 million bond on the $83 million judgment continues to accrue. The $5 million in the court account is earning interest that will go to Carroll if the Court denies the appeal. But the judicial clock ticks much more slowly than real life for an 82-year-old plaintiff.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case: what’s at stake?

If the nine justices decide to hear the Carroll II appeal, the oral argument would take place during the 2026–2027 term. The decision would be handed down in the spring or summer of 2027. The Court would then be called upon to rule on important questions regarding the admissibility of propensity evidence in civil sexual assault cases—rules that apply to thousands of cases across the country, far beyond the Trump case alone.

If the Court denies both appeals, Trump will have to pay. With interest, the bill already exceeds $100 million. That’s a considerable sum, even for a man who prides himself on being a billionaire. And every day of procedural delay is one more day that this money stays in his pocket rather than in that of the woman to whom the court has ruled it belongs.

What I take away from all this is that justice, even when it functions, can be neutralized by time. Fifteen postponements. Two separate appeals. A criminal investigation against the plaintiff. Every delay is a tactical victory for those who have the means and the power to drag things out. Carroll, for her part, has only the law on her side. And the law, sometimes, isn’t fast enough.

Conclusion: The institution is holding on—but for how long?

What the Carroll Case Reveals About America in 2026

The E. Jean Carroll case has become much more than a civil case between a columnist and a former president. It is a full-scale test of the resilience of American institutions in the face of an executive branch that uses them as defensive weapons. Two juries have returned their verdicts. Two appellate courts have upheld them. The Department of Justice has turned its investigation against the plaintiff. The Supreme Court has postponed the case indefinitely. And the president is sending Valentine’s Day emails to his legally recognized victim.

The American judicial system has not collapsed. It is holding up—but it is under pressure. What is at stake here is not just the fate of $100 million or the reputation of an 82-year-old woman. It is the question of whether, in America, the presidency can now shield someone from the consequences of jury verdicts. The answer to this question will define the credibility of the Western rule of law for a generation.

The West cannot afford this precedent

The West faces adversaries—Russia, China, Iran, North Korea—who argue that liberal democracy is a facade, that Western elites are not subject to the law, and that justice is merely a political tool in disguise. Every time a U.S. president uses the machinery of state to evade a jury verdict in a sexual assault case, he provides these adversaries with the best possible rhetorical ammunition. The West must do better than that. It can. The question is whether it still wants to.

E. Jean Carroll said after the second verdict: “We have shown that Trump can be defeated.” This was not a declaration of total victory. It was a reminder that institutions, when they function, serve a purpose. To take that for granted would be the worst mistake.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist