John Solomon reports DOJ says it will not pursue E. Jean Carroll perjury investigation after judge blocks parts

A new report by journalist John Solomon says the U.S. Department of Justice has denied that it is pursuing an investigation into whether author and former media personality E. Jean Carroll committed perjury.

According to the account, the matter centers on Carroll’s ongoing legal fight involving allegations of sexual assault and related court proceedings. Carroll has become a prominent figure in high-profile litigation, and her case has included multiple rounds of legal arguments, evidence disputes, and decisions by judges. As those proceedings have moved forward, questions have also emerged about Carroll’s testimony and whether certain statements could be treated as inconsistent with other evidence.

The report frames the DOJ’s position as a refusal to move forward with a perjury investigation. In other words, it suggests that despite scrutiny and controversy surrounding aspects of Carroll’s testimony, the Justice Department is not acting to investigate potential false statements under perjury theories.

The story appears connected to specific procedural developments in the broader litigation. In many cases involving public figures, the legal landscape can include defamation claims, assault-related claims, and decisions that determine what evidence can be introduced and how prior rulings will affect the outcome. When appellate or district court rulings narrow or clarify what may be considered, parties may attempt to re-litigate issues by emphasizing credibility, inconsistencies, or alleged misstatements.

Solomon’s report emphasizes the DOJ’s denial—an important point for understanding how prosecutors and investigators view the situation. A DOJ refusal to investigate would be significant because perjury investigations can alter the dynamic of a case, potentially leading to additional subpoenas, testimony scrutiny, or other legal exposure. It also affects how supporters and critics interpret the credibility and legal accountability of testimony given in prior court proceedings.

The report’s focus on a denial indicates that there may have been some public uncertainty or rumor about whether perjury charges or an investigation were forthcoming. By asserting that the DOJ has denied such an investigation, the report seeks to clarify that the government is not undertaking that particular line of action.

It is also notable that Solomon’s coverage is described as “breaking,” implying the information is timely and potentially consequential for observers following the case. For people invested in the Carroll litigation, the reporting would likely be viewed as an update on whether prosecutors will pursue additional measures beyond the existing civil litigation.

While the report highlights the DOJ’s stance, it does not necessarily change the underlying facts of Carroll’s civil case or the outcomes already decided in court. Instead, it concerns how the executive branch’s legal apparatus is responding to allegations that her testimony could have involved deliberate falsehoods.

In high-profile disputes, judicial rulings can be interpreted in different ways by different stakeholders. Supporters of Carroll may see the DOJ denial as consistent with a legal system that does not find the threshold for perjury investigation. Critics may see it as limiting accountability, but the DOJ’s position nonetheless indicates the government is not moving forward with that specific step.

The story underscores how legal processes can extend beyond the immediate courtroom. Even when cases are civil or involve defamation and related claims, there can be parallel concerns about criminal exposure. However, prosecutors retain discretion about when to investigate and when evidence, legal standards, and evidentiary strength justify potential perjury inquiries.

By making the DOJ’s denial central to the update, Solomon’s report directs attention to the government’s discretion and its determination not to pursue perjury investigation at this time. That, in turn, provides a clearer picture of what may or may not be coming next for Carroll and others following the litigation.

Overall, the report serves as an important corrective in the public conversation—clarifying that, according to the DOJ’s denial as relayed in the story, an investigation into E. Jean Carroll for perjury is not being pursued. Source: John Solomon.