Trump petitions Supreme Court to overturn $83M Carroll defamation verdict. Legal arguments, expert analysis on chances, financial implications. Details!
Table of Contents
Trump Petitions Supreme Court to Reverse Defamation Verdict in Carroll Case
Former President Seeks High Court Review of $83 Million Judgment as Legal Battle Over Sexual Assault Allegations Continues
Former President Donald Trump has filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn the $83.3 million defamation verdict won by writer E. Jean Carroll in January 2024. The filing represents Trump’s final appeal option in a legal saga that has spanned nearly five years and resulted in two separate jury verdicts finding him liable for sexual assault and defamation.
The 180-page petition, submitted Friday, argues that the trial was “fundamentally unfair” due to evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and damages calculations that Trump’s attorneys characterize as constitutional violations warranting Supreme Court intervention. The legal team contends the case raises important questions about First Amendment protections, due process rights, and appropriate defamation damages that merit the nation’s highest court review.
“This case involves critical constitutional questions about political speech, defamation law, and excessive damages,” said Trump attorney Alina Habba in a statement accompanying the filing. “We are confident the Supreme Court will recognize the fundamental errors that tainted these proceedings and reverse this unjust verdict.”
Carroll’s legal team swiftly responded that Trump’s appeal is “meritless and dilatory,” designed solely to delay payment of the judgment. The Supreme Court petition comes as Trump faces the prospect of posting a $91.6 million bond (judgment plus interest) to prevent collection during appeals—a financial pressure point in a year when he faces multiple legal judgments totaling over $500 million.
Background: The Carroll Cases
The Original Allegations
E. Jean Carroll, a longtime advice columnist, publicly accused Trump in 2019 of sexually assaulting her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. Trump denied the allegations and made statements Carroll characterized as defamatory.
Two Separate Lawsuits:
Carroll I (Filed 2019):
- Defamation claim based on Trump’s denials while president
- Initially delayed due to DOJ intervention and presidential immunity arguments
- Eventually proceeded after Trump left office
Carroll II (Filed 2022):
- Battery claim enabled by New York’s Adult Survivors Act
- Additional defamation claims for post-presidential statements
- Proceeded to trial first
Trial Outcomes
May 2023 Verdict (Carroll II):
- Jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse (not rape under New York definition)
- Liable for defamation
- Awarded **5million∗∗indamages(5million∗∗indamages(2M compensatory, $3M punitive)
- Trump appealed; case pending in Second Circuit
January 2024 Verdict (Carroll I):
- Judge ruled Trump liable for defamation as matter of law (based on first verdict)
- Trial only on damages
- Jury awarded **83.3million∗∗(83.3million∗∗(18M compensatory, $65M punitive)
- This verdict is subject of current Supreme Court petition
Trump’s Supreme Court Arguments
Constitutional Claims
The petition raises several grounds for reversal:
First Amendment Violations:
Trump argues his statements denying Carroll’s allegations constitute protected speech under the First Amendment:
- Denials of wrongdoing are core political speech
- Public figures facing accusations have right to vigorous defense
- Trial court improperly restricted Trump’s ability to contest allegations
Quote from petition:
“The First Amendment does not permit courts to punish political speech simply because a jury finds it offensive or false when the speaker genuinely contests the underlying allegations.”
Due Process Concerns:
Evidentiary Rulings:
- Trial court admitted “Access Hollywood” tape (Trump’s 2005 comments about grabbing women)
- Two other women testified about alleged Trump misconduct
- Petition argues this unfairly prejudiced jury with propensity evidence
Damages Calculation:
- $83.3 million characterized as “grossly excessive” and unconstitutional
- Punitive damages violate due process proportionality requirements
- No evidence of actual reputational harm justified compensatory damages
Seventh Amendment:
- Jury trial issues regarding damages calculation
- Judge’s rulings on liability improperly constrained jury’s role
Legal Standards Arguments
Defamation Law Questions:
Trump’s team argues the case raises unresolved legal questions:
- What level of specificity required for defamation to cause reputational harm
- Whether categorical denials of allegations constitute actionable defamation
- Standards for defamation damages when no measurable harm proven
Public Figure Doctrine:
- Carroll should bear higher burden as public figure
- Actual malice standard improperly applied
- First Amendment requires greater protection for responses to accusations
Carroll’s Opposition
Response Arguments
Carroll’s attorneys filed preliminary opposition characterizing Trump’s petition as lacking merit:
Routine Trial Proceedings:
Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s lead attorney:
“This case involved standard application of well-established legal principles. Two separate juries heard the evidence and reached decisive verdicts. There is nothing here warranting Supreme Court review.”
Key Counterarguments:
Evidence Properly Admitted:
- “Access Hollywood” tape relevant to Trump’s pattern of behavior and state of mind
- Other witnesses’ testimony admissible under established evidence rules
- Trial judge properly exercised discretion
Damages Appropriate:
- Jury heard extensive evidence of harm to Carroll’s reputation
- Punitive damages justified by Trump’s “malicious and willful” conduct
- Trump’s wealth properly considered in punitive calculation
No Constitutional Issues:
- First Amendment doesn’t protect defamatory falsehoods
- Due process satisfied by fair trial procedures
- Supreme Court precedent clearly supports verdict
Delay Tactics Allegation
Carroll’s Position:
“This is a transparent attempt to delay accountability. Mr. Trump has exhausted every procedural avenue and lost at every turn. The Supreme Court should decline this meritless petition and let the judgment stand.”
Supreme Court Review Process
Certiorari Standards
The Supreme Court accepts only 1-2% of petitions filed annually, granting review when:
Criteria for Review:
- Circuit split (conflicting decisions among federal appeals courts)
- Important unresolved federal question
- Lower court clearly violated established Supreme Court precedent
- Issue of exceptional national importance
Trump’s Challenge:
The petition must convince at least four justices that the case meets these criteria—a high bar given that trial court rulings on evidence and damages typically receive substantial deference.
Timeline
Current Status: Petition filed
Carroll Opposition: Due within 30 days
Trump Reply: Optional, within time allowed
Conference Consideration: Earliest fall 2025
Grant/Deny Decision: Winter 2025-26
If Granted: Arguments and decision in 2026-27 term
Probability of Review
Legal Experts’ Assessment:
Professor Stephen Gillers, NYU Law:
“The petition faces very long odds. These are primarily factual and evidentiary issues that the Supreme Court rarely reviews. The constitutional arguments are not novel enough to warrant certiorari.”
Professor Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law:
“This appears to be more about delay and public relations than serious constitutional litigation. The Court is unlikely to grant review of a well-conducted trial simply because the defendant is dissatisfied with the outcome.”
Estimated Probability: Legal scholars surveyed estimate 3-8% chance of Supreme Court granting review.
Financial Implications
Bond Requirements
While appeal is pending, Trump must post bond or security to prevent Carroll from collecting:
Amount Required:
- Judgment: $83.3 million
- Post-judgment interest: ~$8.3 million (and growing)
- Total bond needed: ~$91.6 million
Trump’s Options:
Cash Deposit:
Post full amount with court (ties up liquid assets)
Surety Bond:
Pay bonding company 10% premium (~$9 million) plus collateral
Property as Security:
Court may accept real estate liens, though less common
Negotiate Reduction:
Seek reduced bond based on financial circumstances (unlikely to succeed given Trump’s claimed wealth)
Broader Financial Picture
The Carroll judgment is one of multiple Trump faces:
| Case | Judgment Amount | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Carroll I | $83.3 million | Supreme Court petition filed |
| Carroll II | $5 million | Appeal pending (Second Circuit) |
| NY Civil Fraud | $454 million | Appeal pending, bond posted |
| Total | $542+ million | Various appeal stages |
Cash Flow Pressure:
Between bond requirements and legal fees, Trump faces significant liquidity demands despite real estate holdings.
Political Dimensions
Campaign Impact
The Carroll cases intersect with Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign:
Trump’s Narrative:
- Characterizes verdicts as “political persecution”
- Uses cases to energize base about “weaponized justice system”
- Fundraises off legal battles
Opposition Messaging:
- Points to verdicts as evidence of character and fitness questions
- Highlights jury findings in attack advertising
- Emphasizes accountability theme
Voter Response:
Polling shows verdicts have minimal impact on committed supporters but may influence persuadable independents.
Legal Strategy as Political Strategy
Continued Appeals:
- Keep cases in legal limbo through election
- Avoid definitive resolution before November
- Maintain “under appeal” status undermines political attacks
Supreme Court Petition:
- Signals refusal to accept verdicts
- Appeals to conservative justices
- Creates news cycle narratives
What Happens Next
Near-Term (Next 90 Days)
Carroll Files Opposition:
Roberta Kaplan’s team will file comprehensive brief opposing certiorari.
Bond Posting Deadline:
Trump must post bond to prevent collection enforcement.
Supreme Court Clerks Review:
Petition reviewed and analyzed for justices’ consideration.
Medium-Term (6-12 Months)
Certiorari Decision:
Supreme Court will grant or deny review (denial most likely).
If Denied:
- Judgment becomes final
- Carroll can collect full amount
- Trump’s only option is paying or bankruptcy (politically unthinkable)
If Granted (unlikely):
- Case scheduled for oral arguments
- Decision in 2026-27 term
- Continued uncertainty for both parties
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is Trump asking the Supreme Court to do?
Trump is petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn the $83.3 million defamation verdict E. Jean Carroll won in January 2024. He argues the trial was fundamentally unfair due to evidentiary rulings allowing the “Access Hollywood” tape and other witnesses’ testimony, that damages are unconstitutionally excessive, and that his denial statements were protected First Amendment speech. The petition asks the Court to reverse the verdict or order a new trial.
What are Trump’s chances of winning at the Supreme Court?
Legal experts estimate only 3-8% probability the Supreme Court grants review. The Court accepts just 1-2% of petitions annually and typically avoids reviewing trial court evidentiary decisions and damages calculations. Trump’s constitutional arguments aren’t considered novel enough to warrant High Court intervention. Even if review were granted, reversal would require showing clear legal error, which experts consider unlikely given the trial record.
Does Trump have to pay while the appeal is pending?
Not immediately, but Trump must post a bond of approximately 91.6million(judgmentplusinterest)topreventCarrollfromcollectingduringtheappeal.Thisrequireseitherdepositingcashwiththecourt,obtainingasuretybond(costing 91.6million(judgmentplusinterest)topreventCarrollfromcollectingduringtheappeal.Thisrequireseitherdepositingcashwiththecourt,obtainingasuretybond(costing 9 million in premiums plus collateral), or pledging property as security. Without posting bond, Carroll could begin collection proceedings immediately, including asset liens and seizures.
How much has Trump been ordered to pay Carroll in total?
Across two separate cases, juries have awarded Carroll $88.3 million: $5 million in the May 2023 verdict (sexual abuse and defamation) and $83.3 million in the January 2024 verdict (defamation only). Both verdicts are under appeal, with the Supreme Court petition addressing only the larger $83.3 million judgment. Trump hasn’t paid either amount pending appeals but must post bonds to prevent collection.
Could Trump ignore the judgment and refuse to pay?
No, not without severe legal and financial consequences. If Trump doesn’t post bond, Carroll can enforce the judgment through asset liens, bank account seizures, and real estate attachments. As a practical matter, refusing to pay a court judgment would devastate Trump’s business operations, credit, and reputation. Additionally, willful refusal to comply with court orders could result in contempt findings with additional penalties.
Conclusion: Long-Shot Appeal in High-Stakes Legal Battle
Donald Trump’s Supreme Court petition represents a final legal gambit in a defamation case he has consistently lost at every level of the judicial system. Two separate juries heard extensive evidence and reached decisive verdicts finding him liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding E. Jean Carroll nearly $90 million in total damages. Appeals courts have thus far upheld those verdicts.
The legal odds heavily favor Carroll. The Supreme Court grants review in only a tiny fraction of cases, and Trump’s constitutional arguments face skepticism from legal experts who view them as repackaging of standard trial issues rather than novel questions warranting High Court intervention. The evidentiary and damages questions Trump contests are precisely the type the Supreme Court typically declines to review.
Yet Trump’s strategy extends beyond pure legal merit. The petition delays final judgment, keeps the issue in legal limbo through the 2024 election, and provides political messaging opportunities about a “weaponized justice system.” Even a denied petition serves these purposes while the case remains technically unresolved.
For Carroll, the Supreme Court petition represents frustrating delay in receiving compensation for what two juries found was sexual abuse and reputation-destroying defamation. Her legal team is confident the petition will be denied, but the process adds months or potentially years before judgment becomes final and collectible.
The broader implications extend to defamation law, First Amendment boundaries, and whether powerful defendants can effectively delay accountability through relentless appeals regardless of legal merit.
Within 6-12 months, the Supreme Court will almost certainly deny Trump’s petition, making the $83.3 million judgment final. Until then, both parties navigate a legal and political landscape where Trump delays but Carroll remains confident that justice, though delayed, will ultimately be served.
For now, the case that began with allegations in a department store dressing room decades ago continues its journey through America’s highest courts, with tens of millions of dollars and reputations hanging in the balance.