The Supreme Court denied Trump's cert petition in the $5 million Carroll verdict with no dissents, as Carroll's attorneys moved immediately to collect the escrowed funds.
The Supreme Court on June 29 denied Donald Trump's petition for certiorari seeking review of the $5 million jury verdict against him for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll, with no recorded dissents [1]. The denial exhausts Trump's appellate options on that judgment. Carroll's legal team moved the following day to collect the full $5,779,783 held in escrow, stating the time had come for Trump to pay [2].
The underlying verdict arose from a civil trial in the Southern District of New York before Judge Lewis Kaplan [1]. A jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded Carroll $5 million in damages [1]. Trump appealed through the Second Circuit, which affirmed, before his attorneys sought Supreme Court review [1]. The cert denial closes that circuit without any justice signaling disagreement.
Carroll's lead attorney, Roberta Kaplan, filed the collection motion on June 30, citing the escrowed funds and the now-final status of the judgment [2]. Trump's team indicated he may seek reconsideration of the cert denial, a procedural step that rarely succeeds and does not automatically stay collection proceedings [3]. Carroll's counsel rejected any further delay [2]. The collection motion puts the escrowed funds in immediate play absent a separate court order.
The significance of the ruling extends beyond the dollar figure. A cert denial on this judgment means no federal appellate court will revisit the sexual abuse and defamation findings underlying the $5 million award, locking those liability determinations in place against a sitting president [1]. A separate Carroll jury verdict of $83.3 million, arising from a second defamation trial also before Judge Lewis Kaplan, remains in the appellate pipeline [1]. Trump's petition for certiorari on that larger judgment is expected within weeks, and it is anticipated to raise presidential immunity arguments that the Court has not yet addressed in a civil defamation context [1].
The two Carroll cases together represent the most substantial civil liability exposure any sitting American president has faced in federal court. The fate of the $83.3 million judgment, and whether the Court agrees to hear it, will determine whether the immunity question that has shadowed both cases reaches the justices on the merits.