FACTCHECK: 83 million — the Carroll ruling that the Supreme Court is letting languish

A record that deserves to be put into context

The figure of 15 reschedulings is accurate. It is confirmed by data from the Supreme Court’s official docket (Case No. 25-573), by a CNN analysis published on June 22, 2026, and by SCOTUSblog. The Supreme Court “reschedules” a case when it removes a petition from a conference scheduled to review it and moves it to a later conference. This is not a mechanism for dismissal—it is institutionalized procrastination. According to CNN, only one other case this term has been rescheduled as often: a case involving an Ohio police officer who shot and killed a fleeing suspect. Last year, a case concerning federal jurisdiction over crimes committed on Native American lands was rescheduled 17 times before finally being dismissed.

This frequency raises two questions. First, why? The Court never explains how it manages its pending petitions, and the Carroll case is no exception. Constitutional experts, including Steve Vladeck of Georgetown Law School and a CNN legal analyst, have put forward several hypotheses: one or more justices may be drafting a dissenting opinion on the refusal to hear the case; the Court might be waiting for Trump’s second appeal to be filed so it can review both cases together; or, some justices might simply not want to touch a politically explosive case in the midst of the Trump presidency. None of these hypotheses has been confirmed. What is confirmed is the silence.

What the official docket says

The Supreme Court’s docket for Case No. 25-573 clearly shows a series of “Rescheduled” entries—the official term—that have been accumulating since late January 2026, when all briefs had been filed. The latest entry prior to the date of this article indicates a new rescheduling on June 2, 2026, followed by another on June 8, 2026. The June 2 letter from Trump’s attorneys was filed on June 11, 2026. On the Monday before the June 22 CNN article was published, the court had once again scheduled the case for the following Thursday.

In summary: the figure of 15 reschedulings is accurate. It is not an inflated or approximate number. What is open to interpretation is the significance of this figure. Is it a sign that the Court is hesitant to deny the appeal? Or a sign that it is hesitant to grant it? Or simply that it is waiting to have both Carroll cases on the docket before ruling? All of these interpretations are plausible. None has been verified.

Fifteen times. In a country that presents itself as a model of the rule of law, fifteen successive postponements without explanation in a case where a citizen has twice prevailed against the sitting president—that doesn’t look like judicial prudence. It looks like institutional cowardice disguised as procedure.

What the Jury Actually Decided in January 2024

On January 26, 2024, after three hours of deliberation, the jury in the Carroll I trial delivered a verdict calculated with surgical precision. The $7.3 million in compensatory damages covered Carroll’s documented losses: the television segment she lost after a 26-year career, canceled media appearances, and the professional ruin resulting from Trump’s repeated attacks. The $11 million covered the damage to her reputation. The $65 million in punitive damages specifically penalized the duration, intensity, and premeditation of Trump’s public attacks against Carroll—attacks that, according to the Second Circuit in its September 2025 ruling, had intensified as the trial approached, with Trump even declaring two days after the trial began that he would continue to defame Carroll “a thousand times.”

Trump also testified during this second trial—briefly, but he was present. The jury watched him. Heard him. And imposed the maximum penalty allowed under U.S. civil law in this context. The Second Circuit, in its unanimous September 2025 ruling, described these damages as “reasonable” and rejected Trump’s argument that the $65 million in punitive damages was excessive, noting that the level of “reprehensibility” of Trump’s actions was potentially unprecedented in federal civil case law.

Presidential immunity—the rejected argument

One of Trump’s central arguments in his appeals is that his defamatory statements were made while he was president and should therefore be protected by presidential immunity. In 2024, the Supreme Court had significantly expanded the scope of this immunity in a ruling on official acts. Trump hoped that this ruling would serve as a shield for him in the Carroll case. The Second Circuit firmly rejected this, ruling that the attacks against Carroll did not constitute official acts of the presidency but rather personal statements by a man in conflict with a woman who had accused him. The appellate court also noted that Trump had waived some of his immunity arguments due to procedural defaults.

A second argument by Trump centered on the Westfall Act, which would allow the federal government to step in for Trump as the defendant in the Carroll I case, rendering the case theoretically inadmissible since the federal government cannot be sued for defamation. The Second Circuit rejected this argument as well, noting that Trump had raised this claim fifteen months after the judgment—far too late in the proceedings. It is precisely this argument that Trump intends to bring before the Supreme Court in his second appeal, announced on June 2.

Presidential immunity as a shield against an allegation of sexual assault in a dressing room in the 1990s—that takes some nerve. I understand the legal strategy: testing the limits of the doctrine, finding the loophole, running out the clock. But when you see the argument applied to facts so personal, so far removed from any presidential duty, you realize just how much this doctrine of immunity can become a weapon of mass destruction for any ill-intentioned executive.

May 2023: The First Jury Reaches a Verdict

In May 2023, a Manhattan jury found Trump liable for sexually assaulting Carroll and defaming her in a Truth Social post published in October 2022, in which he called her allegations a “complete con job” and a “hoax.” The jurors awarded Carroll $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. This first verdict stemmed from a lawsuit filed in 2022, after New York State opened a temporary legislative window allowing victims of sexual abuse to file lawsuits for statute-barred claims.

It is important to note precisely what this jury decided—and what it did not decide. The jurors concluded that Carroll had proven sexual abuse—a category that, under New York civil law, includes acts such as nonconsensual touching, forced kissing, or digital penetration. The jurors specified that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that a sexual assault involving vaginal penetration, in the strict sense, had occurred. However, they found that the acts committed did indeed constitute sexual abuse, and that Trump had subsequently defamed her by denying the reality of these acts. An appeal of this verdict has been pending before the Supreme Court since November 2025.

Trump’s Arguments—and Their Treatment on Appeal

Trump challenged the admissibility of the evidence presented at the first trial. His lawyers argued that Judge Lewis Kaplan—appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton—was wrong to allow the jury to hear testimony from two other women accusing Trump of similar conduct, and to permit the playing of the 2005 “Access Hollywood” recording, in which Trump is heard saying that he can “grab women” and “grab them by the [private parts]” without their permission because he is a celebrity. The Second Circuit upheld these evidentiary rulings, citing Federal Rules 413 and 415, which permit this type of evidence in cases involving sexual assault.

The appeals court further held that even if this evidence had been admitted in error—which it did not acknowledge—its impact on the verdict would have been negligible, given the “overall strength of Carroll’s case.” This wording speaks volumes about the judges’ conviction. The three members of the Second Circuit panel that upheld this verdict in December 2024 had all been appointed by Democratic presidents: Judge Maria Araújo Kahn, Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam, and Judge Denny Chin. Trump used this to seek an en banc hearing—before the full bench of the circuit, including judges appointed by Republican presidents. That request was denied by a majority of twelve judges in June 2025.

I am sometimes asked if I think Trump is guilty. I always give the same answer: it is not my role to decide that—it is the jury’s role. And two juries have decided it. Twice. What I can say as a columnist is that Trump’s procedural obstinacy, the Department of Justice’s involvement in his personal defense, and the Supreme Court’s silence paint an institutional picture that should concern every Democrat—and every honest Republican.

The filing on November 10, 2025

The appeal that Trump filed with the Supreme Court concerns the $5 million verdict (Carroll II). It was filed on November 10, 2025, after Trump had been granted a two-month extension in August 2025—an extension granted by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who oversees urgent matters for the Second Circuit. The petition was formally entered on the Supreme Court’s docket under case number 25-573, with a filing date of November 13, 2025.

In the petition, Trump’s legal team asserted that it was “deeply detrimental to the integrity of our Republic” for Trump, in the midst of a historic presidency, to have to fight old and, in their view, baseless allegations. They also stated that “this mistreatment of a president cannot be tolerated.” Carroll, for her part, asked the court to deny the motion, arguing that even if Trump prevailed on the evidentiary issues, it would not change the final outcome given the “strength of her case.”

The Handling of the Motion—A Statistical Anomaly

All written briefs had been filed with the Supreme Court by the end of January 2026. That is when the postponements began. The February 20, 2026, conference was scheduled to review the petition—but the day before, without explanation, the case was withdrawn. It was then rescheduled for the February 27 conference, only to be withdrawn again. And so on, fifteen times. According to data compiled by CNN, only one other case this term has seen such frequent delays. Normally, the Court decides whether to grant or deny a petition after one or two conferences. In this case, seven months after the petition was filed, no decision has been rendered.

The Supreme Court, in accordance with its standard practices under Chief Justice John Roberts, has provided no explanation. A spokesperson for the Court did not respond to CNN’s requests for comment. This is legally normal—the Court is never required to explain its handling of pending petitions. But the political context makes this silence particularly telling: the Court, whose majority was appointed by Trump himself, is hearing an appeal by the sitting president against a woman who accuses him of sexual abuse.

I can understand that the Supreme Court finds itself in an uncomfortable position. Accepting the case means getting bogged down in a political quagmire. Rejecting it means definitively upholding the verdicts against Trump, which will be portrayed as a betrayal by the American right. So it waits. It reschedules. Fifteen times. In a constitutional system where federal judges serve for life precisely to be protected from this kind of political maneuvering, this behavior strikes me as unworthy.

An Unusual Document in the Supreme Court Proceedings

On June 2, 2026, Trump’s attorneys sent a letter to the Supreme Court that most constitutional experts described as unusual. This letter, entered on the docket on June 11, 2026, informed the Court that the Trump team intended to file a second appeal—this time against the $83.3 million verdict (Carroll I) — “within the next month.” The attorneys also suggested that “the Court may wish to consider the petitions together,” implying that the Court should wait for the second petition before ruling on the first.

This strategy makes procedural sense: if the Court accepts both appeals and consolidates them, it can hear them simultaneously in the fall of 2026. If it accepts only one of the two, it risks creating an inconsistency in its case law. But to outside observers, this letter can also be interpreted in another way: it gives the Court a new reason to reschedule again and again, until the second appeal is formally filed, and then until it is fully prepared for trial.

Impact on the Timeline — Fall as the Earliest Possible Date

Under the Supreme Court’s standard procedures, the filing of a second appeal related to the same case will almost automatically delay any decision on the first appeal until the second has, in turn, been fully prepared for trial. This preparation generally takes several months. This means that the Supreme Court will likely not issue a decision on the two Carroll appeals until fall 2026 at the earliest, and potentially not until the winter of 2026–2027.

In the meantime, Carroll still hasn’t seen a penny. On May 12, 2026, the Second Circuit agreed to stay enforcement of the $83.3 million judgment for the duration of the proceedings before the Supreme Court—on the condition that Trump increase his bond by $7.46 million to cover accruing interest. Carroll had not objected to this request under that condition. This bond brings the total secured to over $91 million, according to a spokesperson for her attorney, Roberta Kaplan.

It’s a letter that subtly tells nine federal judges: “Wait for us—we’re coming.” And the Court is waiting. I don’t claim to know what goes on in the corridors of the Supreme Court. But I note that this procedural dance always benefits the same side—that of the man who owes the money.

The Perjury Investigation — The Raw Facts

In late May 2026, CNN and The New York Times reported that the Department of Justice had opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, focusing on possible perjury committed during her civil depositions. The investigation is reportedly being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, under the direction of Andrew Boutros. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche—who was Trump’s personal attorney before being appointed to this position—has recused himself from the case.

The specific focus of the investigation: during a deposition in 2022, Carroll stated that she was not receiving any outside funding for her legal proceedings. However, two weeks before the first trial began, her attorneys informed the judge and the Trump team that a nonprofit organization linked to billionaire Reid Hoffman—co-founder of LinkedIn and a major Democratic donor—had contributed to her legal fees. Judge Kaplan had ruled at the time that there was no reason to doubt Carroll’s credibility, noting that she had simply forgotten about this limited funding received in September 2020. In 2024, the Second Circuit upheld this interpretation: Carroll “was simply not involved” in the matter of funding her legal costs.

An investigation already rejected by the civil courts

The argument that the Department of Justice is using as the basis for its criminal investigation is therefore precisely the argument that the Second Circuit dismissed during the appeal of the initial verdict. A federal appeals court has already examined this issue and concluded that Carroll did not lie. Launching a criminal investigation based on the same factual grounds seems less like a search for the truth and more like a campaign of judicial harassment—at least according to many constitutional law experts, including those cited by The Independent and The Guardian in May and June 2026.

It is also noteworthy that, following CNN’s initial reports, Attorney General Boutros issued a public statement asserting that his office “had not opened—and had never opened—a criminal investigation against E. Jean Carroll.” This denial sowed confusion about the actual status of the investigation. Anonymous sources within the Department of Justice, however, maintained that the investigation was indeed underway. The Washington Times on June 9, 2026, confirmed that Boutros’s office was examining the issue of Hoffman’s payment of legal fees.

Using federal resources to conduct a criminal investigation into the woman who has won two civil lawsuits against you—while you are president—is exactly the kind of thing Trump accused Obama and Clinton of doing to him. The difference is that he’s actually doing it. And for now, there is no countervailing power bold enough to say so out loud.

“The $83 million is for an assault”—FALSE

This is one of the most common misconceptions. The $83.3 million is not related to allegations of physical assault. It is solely in response to the smear campaign Trump waged for years against Carroll—his social media posts, public statements, and repeated insults—after she recounted the events in her 2019 memoir. The January 2024 jury answered the following question: How much damage did Trump’s repeated public lies cause Carroll? Answer: $83.3 million.

The $5 million verdict directly concerns the sexual abuse—but even there, it also includes a defamation component, as Trump had defamed Carroll via a 2022 Truth Social post following the publication of her memoir. The two verdicts are thus intertwined between defamation and sexual conduct, but the breakdown of the amounts is clear: the massive $83 million verdict is for chronic and deliberate defamation, not for physical assault.

“Carroll never proved that an assault took place”—PARTIALLY MISLEADING

The statement that “nothing was proven” is technically inaccurate under U.S. civil law. Two separate juries found, under the civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll. This standard differs from the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”—but it is not a low standard. It means that the jurors found it more likely than not that the alleged events had occurred.

It is true that the first jury specified that the evidence was insufficient to establish the most serious offense in the strict sense of the term—in English, “rape” implies vaginal penetration by the penis according to the New York definition in effect at the time. But the jurors concluded that Trump had committed sexual assault, which includes nonconsensual digital penetration. The Second Circuit, in its September 2025 ruling on the $83 million verdict, also noted that the January 2024 jury had likewise found that Trump had committed “sexual abuse and forced touching” as grounds for civil liability.

I have to be honest about this: civil law and criminal law are two distinct worlds, and I do not confuse the two. What I’m saying is that two independent juries did their jobs. They heard the evidence, the witnesses, and the cross-examinations. And they reached a decision. I have no reason to believe that these twelve Americans, selected at random, lied in their verdict.

Presidential Immunity as an Escape Strategy

In his various appeals, Trump has put forward two theories of immunity. The first—immunity for official acts—applies to his 2019 statements made from the White House, which are the subject of Carroll I (the $83 million verdict). In July 2024, the Supreme Court had significantly expanded presidential protection for official acts in a case unrelated to Carroll. Trump is attempting to benefit from this. But the Second Circuit has ruled: denying that one sexually assaulted a woman in a public statement is not an official act of the presidency. It is a personal act.

The second theory—the Westfall doctrine—would allow the Court to substitute the federal government for Trump as the defendant in Carroll I. If the government were the defendant, the case would automatically be dismissed because the U.S. government is immune from defamation lawsuits. This is the mechanism Trump hopes the Supreme Court will uphold in his second appeal, announced on June 2. The Second Circuit rejected this argument on the grounds that Trump had raised it fifteen months after the judgment—far too late in the proceedings.

Why the Supreme Court Might Agree to Hear the Case

Not all of the issues raised by Trump lack legal merit. The question of whether and how the doctrine of presidential immunity applies to statements made from the White House on personal matters is an unresolved constitutional issue. Similarly, the application of the Westfall Act in this context is an issue the Supreme Court has never directly addressed. Four out of nine justices are enough to grant a hearing. It is therefore not unlikely that the Court will take up the case—which does not mean Trump will win, but it does mean the legal saga will continue.

Constitutional expert Steve Vladeck, commenting on CNN, pointed out that the Court’s behavior—indefinitely rescheduling rather than dismissing the case outright—suggests that at least some justices are interested in the issues raised by Trump. A simple and immediate dismissal could have come as early as February 2026. The fact that this has not happened, after 15 reschedulings, is in itself a signal—albeit an ambiguous one.

I want to be honest here as well: Trump has the right to claim immunity. It is a legitimate constitutional issue in a state governed by the rule of law. What I find problematic is not that he is raising these arguments—it is that he is simultaneously using state resources to harass the plaintiff, delay payment indefinitely, and turn the judicial power against the woman who won the case. This is no longer a legal strategy. It is domination.

Bonds and Accruing Interest

Trump posted a bond to appeal both verdicts without having to pay immediately. For the $83.3 million verdict, he had posted a bond covering that amount plus 10%—or approximately $91 million at the time of the appellate ruling. In May 2026, the Second Circuit agreed to stay enforcement of the judgment during proceedings before the Supreme Court, on the condition that Trump increase his bond by $7.46 million to cover the additional interest that would accrue during the Supreme Court appeal period—estimated to last until October 2027.

Carroll had not objected to this stay, subject to this financial condition. Her attorney, Roberta Kaplan, confirmed that this provision financially protected Carroll while the case was pending. But “protected” does not mean “paid”: the money is held in a bond, in the hands of a third party or the judicial system, not in Carroll’s. And in the meantime, interest on a total of $88.3 million is accruing. Trump now owes Carroll, with interest, more than $100 million.

Possible Scenarios

If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeals, the verdicts become final and Trump will have to pay. If the Court accepts one or both appeals, the saga will continue at least until the end of Trump’s current term in January 2029. If the Court accepts the appeals and rules in Trump’s favor on the issue of immunity or the Westfall Act, the verdicts could be overturned or remanded for a new trial. This last scenario is the least likely according to most experts, but it cannot be ruled out when it comes to procedural issues such as the Westfall Act.

In any case, Carroll—who is now 82 years old—may have to wait several more years before the final outcome is known. And the Justice Department’s investigation, whatever its exact nature, adds another layer of uncertainty and stress to the situation of a woman who has, after all, won every legal battle she has fought.

82 years old. Two jury-verdict victories. Zero dollars received. And now a criminal investigation hanging over her head. If that isn’t the definition of a two-tiered justice system, I don’t know what is. And I say this as an observer of the West, which claims to embody a model for the rest of the world. We should be ashamed.

The Department of Justice — Blanche’s Recusal

The Department of Justice’s involvement in Trump’s defense in the Carroll case is multifaceted. On the one hand, the DOJ has intervened in the appellate proceedings to support Trump’s position on the Westfall Act—that is, to argue that the federal government should step in to replace Trump as the defendant. This is an official position of the Trump administration, defended by government attorneys in briefs filed with federal courts.

On the other hand, the DOJ has opened—or is reportedly in the process of opening—a criminal investigation against Carroll herself. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal attorney in several cases, recused himself from the Carroll investigation due to this obvious conflict of interest. However, the investigation has nevertheless been referred to the Chicago office. The Independent cites several experts who believe this investigation is designed to “undermine Carroll’s victories” and “silence other” potential victims who might consider suing powerful figures.

The Westfall Act—An Offensive Mechanism

The Westfall Act is normally a mechanism that protects federal officials from personal lawsuits for acts committed in the course of their official duties. Its application in the Carroll case represents a significant expansion of its scope: Trump is attempting to use it to grant himself immunity for personal acts committed while he was president. The Second Circuit rejected this argument, but the announcement of a second appeal means that this issue will be brought before the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court were to accept this theory, the implications would be far-reaching for any future president: it would become virtually impossible for a private citizen to personally sue a sitting president for personal acts committed during his presidency, even years later. This is a constitutional issue that goes far beyond the case of Trump and Carroll—which is one of the reasons the Supreme Court might decide to hear the case.

The Westfall Act turned into a shield for a president defending himself against personal accusations—I’m no constitutional scholar, but I see the danger. If this theory prevails, every U.S. president would be granted near-total immunity for his personal acts, provided he took care to commit them from the Oval Office. This is not the America of the Founding Fathers. It’s something else entirely.

A Test for American Institutions

The Carroll case has, unwittingly, become a stress test for American institutions. The question at hand is not merely “Did Trump sexually assault Carroll?”—two juries have already answered that. The question is: Are the institutions capable of enforcing a civil verdict against the President of the United States? And if the answer is no, what are the consequences for the rule of law?

In the West that I defend, the rule of law is a pillar, not an option. A president can challenge verdicts through legal channels—that is his right. But simultaneously using the resources of the state to block payment, launch a criminal investigation into the plaintiff, and delay the Supreme Court proceedings indefinitely—that is another matter entirely. This is a test that American institutions are failing, not spectacularly, but quietly, procedurally, conference after conference.

A Model for Authoritarian Regimes

Trump’s strategy in the Carroll case—using every available lever to delay, obstruct, and turn the justice system against the plaintiff—is precisely the playbook that authoritarian regimes have always followed. Vladimir Putin has done it in Russia. Xi Jinping is doing it in China. Leaders in Iran and North Korea have institutionalized it. What’s different is when this playbook is applied in the United States, within the formal framework of an independent judicial system that is supposed to resist it. The difference between a democracy and an authoritarian regime isn’t the absence of attempts to manipulate the law—it’s the ability of institutions to resist them. Right now, that resistance is faltering.

I’ll conclude this section by admitting a vulnerability: I don’t know how this will all end. I do not know whether the Supreme Court will find the courage to reject the appeals, or whether it will resort to the doctrine of immunity to avoid having to rule on the matter. What I do know is that the whole world is watching. And that how the United States handles this case will say something important about what remains of its democratic model.

The facts, nothing but the facts

Let’s recap the verified facts. E. Jean Carroll won two lawsuits against Donald Trump in federal jury trials. The first, in May 2023, awarded her $5 million for sexual abuse and defamation. The second, in January 2024, awarded her $83.3 million for defamation. Three panels of federal judges have upheld these verdicts. Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court, filed in November 2025, concerns the $5 million verdict. It has been rescheduled 15 times. The Court has provided no explanation. A letter from Trump’s attorneys dated June 2, 2026, announces a second appeal against the $83 million verdict. Carroll has not yet received a single dollar. The DOJ is investigating her for alleged perjury. Trump owes her, with interest, more than $100 million.

These are the facts. No more, no less. Each is corroborated by primary sources: the official Supreme Court docket, published Second Circuit decisions, and articles from CNN, AP News, The Guardian, and SCOTUSblog. None of this is made up.

What this says about the state of American democracy

The West needs an America that is strong, consistent, and respectful of its own rules. Trump is—as I have always said—a necessary evil on certain fronts: his firm stance toward China, Iran, Russia, and nations that challenge the rules-based international order can serve legitimate Western interests. But when that same Trump turns state institutions against an 82-year-old woman who had the courage to speak out about what he did to her—and the institutions let him get away with it—it is no longer a necessary evil. It is simply evil. American democracy will not survive the notion that the president is above civil court rulings. This notion must be challenged, named, and rejected. That is the role of a free columnist.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist