In a pivotal decision that has garnered widespread attention, a federal appeals court on Friday rejected former President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn a lower court ruling in his $5 million civil sexual assault case involving former Elle columnist E. Jean Carroll. The ruling reinforces a jury verdict in Carroll’s favor, reaffirming the legal precedent for civil accountability in cases involving public figures and alleged misconduct.
The decision, which involved the Second Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc — meaning all 11 judges were involved — maintained the three-judge panel’s December 30 ruling that upheld a jury award for Carroll. The ruling continues a long and highly publicized legal battle dating back to Carroll’s allegations of sexual assault in the mid-1990s and subsequent defamation claims.
The Allegations: Sexual Assault and Defamation
Carroll, now 81, publicly alleged that Trump assaulted her in a dressing room at Manhattan’s Bergdorf Goodman department store around 1996. She also claimed that Trump defamed her by calling her accusation a hoax in an October 2022 post on Truth Social, his social media platform.
The allegations prompted a civil lawsuit in which Carroll sought accountability for both the assault and the public statements that she argued harmed her reputation. The case has attracted national attention not only for its legal significance but also for its exploration of accountability for high-profile figures in public life.
In May 2023, a jury found that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll and defamed her through false statements, though the jury did not conclude that Trump had raped her, which was part of Carroll’s original claim. This distinction remains a key point in ongoing appeals.
Trump’s Appeal: Arguments and Controversy
In his effort to overturn the jury verdict, Trump’s legal team contended that the trial judge had erred by allowing jurors to view the 2005 Access Hollywood video, in which Trump made lewd remarks about women, as well as other allegations from two additional women. The argument framed this evidence as prejudicial “propensity” evidence that unfairly influenced the jury.
The two women referenced in the case included:
-
Jessica Leeds, a businesswoman who alleged that Trump groped her on a plane in the late 1970s.
-
Natasha Stoynoff, a former People magazine journalist who claimed Trump forcibly kissed her at his Mar-a-Lago estate in 2005.
Trump has consistently denied both allegations, arguing that the inclusion of such evidence created bias against him.
Despite these claims, the Second Circuit Court’s en banc decision upheld the lower court ruling, though two judges appointed by Trump, Steven Menashi and Michael Park, dissented. They argued that the Access Hollywood tape and similar evidence should not have been admitted, maintaining that it improperly suggested a pattern of behavior.
The Civil Case and Jury Award
The jury initially awarded Carroll $5 million for her claims, a significant civil judgment reflecting both the assault and defamation aspects of the case. In addition to this ruling, Trump is appealing an $83.3 million defamation verdict issued in January 2024, which found that Trump harmed Carroll’s reputation by denying her claims in 2019 when she first publicized the Bergdorf Goodman incident.
Trump’s legal team argues that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling granting him broad criminal immunity should also shield him from civil liability in Carroll’s case. However, lower courts have not agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing the distinction between criminal and civil accountability.
The Role of Social Media in the Case
Trump’s public statements on social media platforms, particularly Truth Social, have played a central role in the defamation aspects of the lawsuit. For example, during the 2024 Memorial Day observance, Trump posted a highly critical message referencing Carroll and the jury verdict:
“Happy Memorial Day to All, including the Human Scum that is working so hard to destroy our Once Great Country, & to the Radical Left, Trump Hating Federal Judge in New York that presided over…TWO separate trials, that awarded a woman, who I never met before…91 MILLION DOLLARS for ‘DEFAMATION’.”
The post sparked further legal scrutiny, as Carroll’s legal team suggested it could constitute additional grounds for civil litigation. This highlights the ongoing tension between public commentary by high-profile figures and the legal limits on statements that may be considered defamatory.
Legal Experts Weigh In
Legal analysts note that the case underscores the complexities of civil litigation involving public figures, particularly when allegations span decades and include multiple claims of misconduct. Civil courts often have to balance the rights of the defendant to a fair trial with the plaintiff’s right to seek justice for harm caused by alleged actions and statements.
The decision to allow evidence such as the Access Hollywood video has been controversial, reflecting broader debates about the admissibility of prior behavior in civil cases. While dissenting judges argued that such evidence could prejudice jurors, proponents contended that it provided context for assessing credibility and intent.
E. Jean Carroll’s Perspective and Advocacy
Carroll’s legal team, led by attorney Roberta Kaplan, has consistently emphasized that her pursuit of the case is about more than personal compensation — it is also about accountability and public awareness. Carroll, now in her 80s, has remained engaged in the legal process, highlighting the broader implications of her case for survivors of sexual assault and the importance of civil remedies.
In statements to the media, Kaplan confirmed that Carroll was exploring further legal options, including additional lawsuits related to social media posts or other actions that may have defamed her or harmed her reputation.
“We have said several times since the last jury verdict in January that all options were on the table. And that remains true today. All options are on the table,” Kaplan stated.
Broader Implications for Civil Accountability
The Trump-Carroll case represents a high-profile example of civil accountability for sexual assault and defamation allegations. Its outcomes have implications for how courts handle cases involving public figures, evidence of prior conduct, and statements made on social media.
Legal observers note that the case demonstrates the ongoing tension between freedom of speech, political commentary, and the rights of individuals to seek redress for harm caused by false or defamatory statements. It also reflects evolving standards in civil law for how courts assess credibility, evidence, and damages in cases of alleged sexual misconduct.
A Timeline of Key Events
-
1996: Carroll alleges she was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump in a Manhattan department store.
-
2005: Access Hollywood video surfaces in which Trump makes lewd remarks.
-
2019: Carroll publicly reiterates allegations; Trump denies them.
-
October 2022: Trump posts on Truth Social calling Carroll’s accusation a hoax.
-
May 2023: Jury finds Trump sexually assaulted and defamed Carroll; rape claim not upheld.
-
January 2024: Jury awards Carroll $83.3 million for defamation.
-
May 2025: Trump appeals $5 million sexual assault verdict; Second Circuit en banc upholds ruling.
This timeline illustrates the length and complexity of the legal battle, highlighting multiple claims, appeals, and ongoing public discussion.
The Ongoing Legal Landscape
With multiple lawsuits, appeals, and potential additional claims in play, the Carroll-Trump case continues to capture national attention. Legal experts emphasize that appeals in civil cases can take years to resolve, particularly when they involve high-profile figures, complex evidence, and constitutional questions regarding free speech and immunity.
For Carroll, each legal milestone represents both a personal and symbolic victory, reinforcing the notion that civil courts remain an avenue for accountability even when criminal remedies are unavailable.
Conclusion: Accountability and the Public Eye
The Second Circuit’s recent decision to uphold the jury verdict in favor of E. Jean Carroll represents a significant moment in civil litigation involving sexual assault and defamation claims against a former U.S. president. By rejecting Trump’s appeal, the court reinforced the importance of jury findings, the admissibility of contextual evidence, and the rights of plaintiffs to seek justice.
As Trump continues to appeal various aspects of the case and Carroll considers further legal action, the story remains a key focal point in discussions about accountability, public statements, and civil rights. It underscores that legal processes, even for high-profile individuals, operate within a framework that seeks fairness, transparency, and justice for all parties involved.
For observers, the case is a reminder that civil courts play a critical role in holding individuals accountable, and that public figures are subject to the same legal standards as any other citizen when allegations of harm and defamation arise.