The Supreme Court has rescheduled its conference on Trump's $5 million Carroll verdict petition for the 11th time, with a second petition and immunity claim likely driving the delay.
The Supreme Court rescheduled its conference consideration of Donald Trump's petition for certiorari in *Trump v. Carroll* for the 11th time, again declining to act on his request to review the $5 million sexual abuse and defamation verdict entered against him [1]. The serial delays have drawn attention from court watchers as procedurally unusual, even by the standards of high-profile cert petitions [1].
The petition, docketed as No. 25-573, asks the Court to review a federal jury verdict that found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded E. Jean Carroll $5 million in damages [1]. Carroll's legal team is led by attorney Roberta Kaplan. Trump's petition is handled by the James Otis Law Group [1]. The case arises from proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and has been before the Supreme Court at the conference stage since the petition was filed [1].
The substantive stakes are significant. According to SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe, the repeated rescheduling may reflect coordination between the justices around a second, pending Carroll matter involving the separate $83 million defamation verdict [1]. Trump is expected to seek certiorari in that second case as well, and his legal team has indicated it intends to raise a presidential immunity defense there, an argument that would present the Court with a novel application of its own immunity framework established in *Trump v. United States* [1]. Acting on one petition without the other could complicate or foreclose arguments across both matters, giving the Court an institutional reason to hold both cases simultaneously before deciding whether to grant review [1].
The practical consequence of the delay is that collection of the $5 million judgment remains blocked while the petition is pending [1]. Carroll has been unable to enforce that award, and any further rescheduling in the companion matter would extend that hold. If the Court ultimately agrees to hear both petitions together, briefing and argument would push resolution well into the next term [1].
The next conference date has not been publicly announced as of the date of this report. Court observers are watching for any consolidated briefing order or a call for the views of the Solicitor General, either of which would signal the justices are moving toward a decision on whether to grant review [1].