The Supreme Court is set to decide whether to hear President Donald Trump’s appeal to overturn a $5 million verdict awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll.
The case has drawn sharply conflicting briefs, with some describing it as a standard evidentiary dispute, while others view it as a significant challenge to judicial fairness.
The justices have scheduled Trump’s petition for discussion at their closed-door conference on February 20, according to a docket update reported January 28.
The Court reportedly grants review in roughly 1 to 2% of cases.
A federal jury in New York in May 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the mid-1990s and for defaming her when he denied her allegations during his first presidency. The jury awarded Carroll $5 million. Trump has denied assaulting Carroll.
In filings urging the High Court to grant review, Trump’s attorneys argue the trial was skewed by improper evidentiary rulings that allowed jurors to hear decades-old allegations from other women and the 2005 “Access Hollywood” recording, in which Trump was heard making lewd comments about consensual sex acts with women.
“It is deeply damaging to the fabric of our Republic for President Trump … to continue fighting against decades-old, false allegations and the myriad wrongs throughout this baseless case,” his lawyers wrote in a January 28 reply brief. “This mistreatment of a President cannot be allowed to stand.”
The petition centers on three questions under the Federal Rules of Evidence, including whether courts must weigh the age of prior allegations when admitting so-called propensity evidence in sexual assault cases. Trump’s team says the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit created “a novel exception to Rule 403” by minimizing the importance of remoteness and unfair prejudice.
In separate amicus briefs, several states and advocacy groups echo that claim, asserting that the lower courts departed from neutral evidentiary standards. One multistate filing, led by Iowa’s Attorney General and joined by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, argues that “Neutral, predictable application of the Federal Rules is essential to preserving public confidence that justice is administered evenhandedly, without regard to the identity or prominence of the parties.”
Another brief from the Article III project said, “The modus operandi identified by the Second Circuit would have allowed the admission of nearly any alleged past instance of sexual misconduct involving a woman the President did not know well.”
Carroll’s attorneys, in a January 14 opposition brief, counter that Trump is seeking to relitigate fact-bound evidentiary decisions and that his petition does not identify a genuine split among federal appeals courts.
“Petitioner now seeks to litigate these evidentiary issues yet again. But his petition suffers from a fatal defect: It does not challenge the Second Circuit’s alternative holding that petitioner failed to show that any error affected his substantial rights,” her lawyers wrote.
They also argue that even if any evidentiary error occurred, it was harmless “taking the record as a whole and considering the strength of Ms. Carroll’s case.”
Carroll’s brief maintains there is “no circuit split on the relationship between Rule 403 and Rule 415” and that the district court “plainly articulated the correct legal standard” when admitting the challenged evidence.
Federal Rule of Evidence 403 says, “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”
Rule 415 says in part, “In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.”
The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts’ leadership, takes on fewer cases than his predecessor. The Roberts Court hears about 60 cases on the merits docket in any given year, compared with 160 cases in the 1980s under then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, according to calculations from SCOTUS Blog.
The case arrives at the High Court amid ongoing litigation between the two parties. Trump has separately appealed a second jury verdict awarding Carroll $83.3 million in damages for additional defamation claims; that appeal has not yet reached the Supreme Court.
If four justices vote to grant certiorari, the Court would hear arguments later this year. An order on whether the justices will take up the case could come as soon as February 20 or in a subsequent order list, according to WRIC.
For now, the briefs present starkly different portraits of the same trial: Trump’s counsel depicting the proceedings as “rife with procedural irregularities,” while Carroll’s attorneys characterize the appeal as meritless and outcome-determinative only in Trump’s telling.