COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

E. Jean Carroll

Two juries, $88.3 million, and what “sexual abuse” means here

← Interactive guide and chronology · The Trump hub: biography, timeline and every file · What people say ↓

What the juries found

Sexual abuse, yes. Rape under the 1990s statute, no. And why that line is narrower than it sounds.

In May 2023 a jury of nine found that Trump sexually abused Carroll in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s and defamed her when he called her story a “hoax” in 2022. It awarded $5 million. It did not find that he raped her under New York’s legal definition at the time, which required a specific kind of penetration. [1]

Judge Lewis Kaplan later wrote that the jury’s verdict did not mean it found Carroll failed to prove rape “as many people commonly understand” the word, and that the evidence showed he forcibly penetrated her with his fingers. The Second Circuit upheld the verdict and the judge’s evidence rulings, including admitting the Access Hollywood tape and testimony from two other women. [2][1]

Trump has always denied it, says he never met her in that store and that she is “not my type.” The Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal in June 2026. [3]

The sources

  1. Second Circuit: Carroll II, December 30, 2024, $5m judgment ↗

    Primary court or government record, original public statement, or identified reporting; read the linked source for its scope.

  2. Judge Kaplan: July 19, 2023 opinion explaining the verdict ↗

    Primary judicial explanation of a civil verdict. The historic New York statutory definition and ordinary-language usage are different; this was not a criminal conviction.

  3. Supreme Court docket 25-573: review and rehearing denied in 2026 ↗

    Primary court or government record, original public statement, or identified reporting; read the linked source for its scope.

The $83.3 million award

A separate case, about what he said as president. Don’t mix up the two.

The second case was about statements Trump made in June 2019, while president, calling Carroll a liar. Because the first jury had already found the abuse happened, the second jury decided only damages, and in January 2024 awarded $83.3 million, including $65 million in punitive damages. [1]

The Second Circuit upheld it in September 2025. Trump’s Supreme Court petition, docket 26-141, argues in part that statements made while president are protected. As of this edition the Court had not decided whether to take it. [1][2]

What we can’t tell you. The Supreme Court had not acted on petition 26-141 as of 22 October 2026.

The sources

  1. Second Circuit: Carroll I, September 8, 2025, $83.3m judgment ↗

    Primary court or government record, original public statement, or identified reporting; read the linked source for its scope.

  2. Supreme Court docket 26-141: separate $83.3m petition ↗

    Primary court or government record, original public statement, or identified reporting; read the linked source for its scope.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

3 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

All 137 rated claims ↗

← The Trump hub: biography, timeline and every file

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFilesTrump shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings are shown on the interactive edition. This plain reading edition does not load them.

On X

This plain reading edition does not load posts. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFilesTrump.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.