President Donald Trump has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a civil jury verdict involving E. Jean Carroll, a former Elle columnist who sued him twice after publishing a 2019 book. The case centers on claims that Trump sexually abused Carroll and later defamed her. Fox News reported that Trump is asking the nation’s highest court to review the jury’s decision and overturn the finding that he committed the alleged misconduct and defamatory statements. News Source
Carroll’s lawsuits trace back to the period following the publication of her 2019 book. In the litigation that followed, a jury ruled against Trump in a civil context—where the burden of proof differs from criminal cases—and ordered substantial damages. The latest phase of the dispute now turns on whether the Supreme Court will take up Trump’s request for review, a step that could dramatically change the immediate financial consequences of the earlier verdicts.
Trump’s move to seek Supreme Court intervention comes after a sequence of appellate actions. According to a report by NBC News, a federal appeals court rejected Trump’s request for another hearing aimed at challenging Carroll’s $83 million defamation award. That development set the stage for Trump’s new filing, in which his legal team argued that the Supreme Court might reverse the appeals panel’s decision involving the so-called Westfall Act. News Source
In the NBC News account, Trump asked a federal appeals court to pause the ruling while the Supreme Court process plays out. His filing contended there was “a fair, in fact, strong, prospect” that the Supreme Court would reverse the panel’s Westfall Act ruling. The same submission also asserted that blocking Carroll from collecting the award could prevent “irreparable harm,” framing the money judgment as the potential source of immediate damage before the top court decides whether to hear the matter. News Source
Carroll’s legal position has been sharply skeptical of the prospects of Supreme Court review. In September, when Trump’s lawyers first indicated they were considering an appeal to the Supreme Court, Roberta Kaplan—Carroll’s attorney—told the Associated Press that she did not believe Trump would present legal questions worthy of the justices’ review. Kaplan’s statement, as reported by Fox News, was blunt: she said she did not believe Trump would be able to identify any legal issues in the Carroll cases that merit consideration by the Supreme Court. News Source
While the Supreme Court has not yet docketed Trump’s request for argument or granted review, the timing of recent developments has intensified the stakes. As summarized by Newsweek, an appellate court upheld the relevant verdict in December 2024. With that outcome already confirmed at the appellate level, Trump’s legal team now seeks a higher court’s reversal. Newsweek also noted that if the Supreme Court declines to take the case, the prior verdicts and financial penalties would remain in effect.
Another key element of the argument involves the role of federal law in suits against sitting or former officials. The Hill reported that Trump and the Department of Justice are petitioning the Supreme Court in part by invoking a legal mechanism that allows the federal government to step into—effectively alter—the litigation when the conduct at issue falls within the scope of federal employment. The Hill described this as a desire to rely on the Westfall Act framework, which can affect whether a lawsuit proceeds against an individual or is instead channeled through the federal government.
The Hill further reported that the government’s petition emphasized the financial magnitude of the exposure facing the president personally, describing it as nearly a hundred million dollars in personal liability for conduct that, it argued, was well within the scope of his federal office. The Hill also stated that the Supreme Court had declined to take up a prior Trump appeal last month, and that funds were transferred to Carroll’s legal team in the meantime, underscoring how swiftly the litigation can produce real-world consequences even before the Supreme Court decides. News Source
In its petition, the DOJ argued that the Supreme Court should determine that the earlier administration’s failure to adequately defend the former president should not justify the appeals court’s refusal to allow the new administration’s renewed defense. The Hill quoted the government’s framing that the Supreme Court should decide whether the “abandoned defense” by the last administration contributed to procedural shortcomings in the Second Circuit’s handling—an assertion that ties the legal dispute not only to the underlying merits, but also to the mechanics of representation and defense strategy.
For Carroll, the core objective is to preserve the jury’s findings and ensure the judgment stands. For Trump, the central aim is reversal, both on legal grounds tied to the applicable statutes and procedural questions about whether the case should be restructured under the Westfall Act. The near-term procedural timeline will likely hinge on whether the Supreme Court grants review and, if so, how quickly it might decide to halt enforcement while it considers the appeal.
As the case heads toward the Supreme Court, it remains one of the most prominent examples of how defamation and alleged sexual abuse claims can intersect with complex federal legal doctrines. Regardless of the final outcome, the filing marks a significant escalation from jury and appellate litigation to the highest court, setting a new chapter in a dispute that began with Carroll’s 2019 book and has now produced a multi-stage legal fight over an $83 million defamation award and the broader verdict against Trump. News Source
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
