E. Jean Carroll

In May 2023, a federal civil jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and defaming her, awarding $5 million. The jury did not find rape under the narrow New York statutory definition used in its instructions. That distinction is part of the verdict and should be reported honestly. Trump denied attacking Carroll. [1]

Judge Lewis Kaplan subsequently explained that the statutory definition then required a particular form of penetration; the assault established by the civil evidence fit the broader ordinary meaning of rape. Thus “a criminal jury convicted him of rape” is false, while “the jury found nothing sexual happened” is also false. No graphic reconstruction is needed to understand the difference. [2]

The Second Circuit upheld the $5 million judgment in December 2024. On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court declined review; it denied rehearing on August 17. Denying review leaves the lower judgment in place without issuing a new Supreme Court merits opinion. This civil liability finding should carry more evidentiary weight than an untested allegation, while remaining accurately distinguished from a criminal conviction. [1][3]

Carroll’s two actions are easily confused. The $5 million case concerned the assault and a 2022 statement. The separate case concerned Trump’s 2019 statements, made while president. Liability issues established in the earlier proceeding narrowed what the later jury needed to decide. In January 2024 that jury awarded $83.3 million, including punitive damages. [1]

The Second Circuit upheld that judgment in September 2025. Trump pursued presidential-immunity and related defenses, and a separate Supreme Court petition was filed in July 2026. Its docket number is 26-141, rather than 25-573, the $5 million matter. Treating a development in one as a decision in both produces inaccurate headlines. [1][2]

As reviewed October 21, the $83.3 million petition had not been granted or denied. The response deadline was extended to October 30. An October 19 order permitted an overlength opposition brief; it did not grant Trump immunity, accept the case for argument or overturn the award. A court accepting paperwork is ordinary litigation administration, not a disguised ruling on whether the plaintiff told the truth. [2]