Supreme Court Slams Door — Twice

Wooden judge's gavel beside a red prohibition symbol
BOMBSHELL SUPREME COURT DENIAL

The Supreme Court has now told President Trump twice that his fight over a $5 million jury verdict is over for good.

Quick Take

  • The Supreme Court declined to hear Trump’s appeal of the $5 million verdict on June 29, 2026, then rejected a request to reconsider that denial.
  • Both orders came with no explanation and no noted dissents from any justice.
  • A New York jury found Trump liable in 2023 for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll and defaming her in a 2022 social media post.
  • The Second Circuit Court of Appeals already upheld the verdict and the evidence used at trial before the case reached the Supreme Court.
  • Trump has consistently denied the allegations and called the case a “hoax” and a “Fake Case.”

Two Supreme Court Doors Close On The Same Case

The Supreme Court denied Trump’s petition to hear the $5 million verdict case on June 29, 2026. That left the jury’s finding standing. Trump’s legal team then asked the Court to reconsider its own denial, a rare long-shot move.

The justices said no again, with no explanation and no dissents recorded. Legal experts note a cert denial never states an opinion on the merits, but it does leave the lower court ruling as the final word.

That distinction matters. Some coverage risks reducing this into a simple “case closed” headline. In truth, the Supreme Court chose not to weigh in at all, twice.

That means the actual evidence and findings never got a fresh look from the nation’s highest court. The Second Circuit’s earlier ruling remains the only appellate opinion explaining why the verdict held up.

What The Jury Actually Found In 2023

A Manhattan jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. The jury stopped short of finding rape, landing instead on a narrower sexual abuse finding.

Jurors also found Trump defamed Carroll through a 2022 post on his social media platform, where he called her allegations a “hoax” and said, “This woman is not my type”. The jury awarded her $5 million total.

The Second Circuit later reviewed the case closely and found no reversible errors in how the trial judge handled evidence. That included testimony admitted under rules allowing prior bad acts in sexual assault cases, a legal tool meant to help juries assess credibility patterns.

The appeals court affirmed both the liability finding and the full $5 million award, giving the verdict a second layer of judicial backing before it ever reached the Supreme Court.

Trump’s Response And What He Has Argued In Court

Trump has never wavered from denial. He called Carroll’s account “a false, disgusting lie” during his own sworn deposition and insisted, “It didn’t happen”. He has repeated that she is not his “type” and dismissed her claims as fabricated.

After this latest Supreme Court rejection, he posted on social media that the justices had declined to “review a Fake Case brought against me”.

His legal team’s core argument was narrower than a simple denial. They claimed the trial judge wrongly allowed evidence that swayed the jury against him.

That argument is what the Second Circuit rejected on the merits, and what the Supreme Court twice declined to even examine. Denial of the underlying claim and disagreement over trial procedure are two different fights, and only one of them reached the appellate courts.

This case is separate from Carroll’s other lawsuit against Trump, an $83.3 million defamation verdict tied to statements he made in 2019 while in office. That case is still working through the courts, with Trump arguing presidential immunity should shield his 2019 comments.

Americans should keep the two cases distinct. One is now permanently settled at $5 million. The other remains an open legal fight with different facts and a different legal theory entirely.

Civil defamation and misconduct cases involving public figures rarely hinge on one dramatic piece of proof. They turn on credibility, evidentiary rulings, and appellate deference to jury findings.

Studies of defamation litigation show plaintiffs who win at trial usually keep those wins on appeal far more often than they lose them.

This case followed that well-worn path, ending not with a bang from the Supreme Court, but with silence that left the jury’s judgment fully intact.

Sources:

apnews.com, abcnews.com, theguardian.com, cnbc.com, scotusblog.com, en.wikipedia.org, reuters.com

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

Today on American Prosperity

© American Prosperity. All Rights Reserved.