Carroll has already received approximately $5.63 million, including interest.
Her attorney, Roberta Kaplan, celebrated the latest Supreme Court action, saying:
“As a result, the jury’s unanimous verdict that Donald Trump sexually assaulted and then defamed E. Jean Carroll is now final and not subject to further appeal.”
For Trump, that fight is over.
The next one could be far more consequential.
The Jury Did Not Find Trump Liable for Rape
One distinction often blurred in political coverage is what the 2023 jury actually decided.
Carroll alleged that Trump raped her during an encounter in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s. The civil jury did not find Trump liable for rape under the specific question and definition presented on its verdict form.
It did, however, find him liable for sexual abuse and for defaming Carroll after he publicly denied her accusations.
That distinction did nothing to erase the financial consequences.
The jury awarded Carroll approximately $5 million, and after years of appeals, the Supreme Court has now twice declined to intervene.
Yet the $5 million case may ultimately be remembered as the smaller chapter of this extraordinary legal saga.
Now Comes the $83.3 Million Question
A separate Carroll judgment worth $83.3 million remains the subject of an active Supreme Court petition.
And unlike the recently concluded case, this dispute puts presidential immunity directly in the spotlight.
Trump filed his petition on July 28, and the case was docketed as Trump v. Carroll, No. 26-141, on July 30. According to the Supreme Court docket, Carroll’s response was initially due August 31, though she subsequently sought additional time.
The case stems from statements Trump made in 2019 while serving his first term in the White House.
His lawyers are arguing that imposing personal damages over those statements improperly intrudes on presidential immunity.
Their Supreme Court petition opens with a sweeping claim:
“This is the first case in our Nation’s history in which a court has imposed damages liability on a President for his conduct in office.”
Trump’s attorneys describe the disputed comments as statements made from the White House while responding to press questions about accusations that, in their view, directly implicated his fitness to serve as president.
That gives the $83.3 million appeal a constitutional dimension that goes well beyond the enormous dollar figure.
Trump Is Invoking the Supreme Court’s Own Immunity Ruling
Trump’s team is pointing directly to the Supreme Court’s landmark 2024 presidential-immunity decision.
That case dealt with criminal prosecution rather than civil damages, an important legal distinction. But Trump’s attorneys argue that the Court’s reasoning concerning official presidential conduct should matter here as well.
Their position is essentially that presidential immunity means little if a president can be personally hit with massive civil damages for official communications made while occupying the White House.
The Second Circuit allowed the $83.3 million judgment to stand.
Trump now wants the Supreme Court to say the lower courts got the constitutional question wrong.
The federal government has also filed its own Supreme Court petition connected to the dispute, seeking to substitute the United States for Trump as the defendant.
The Clinton Precedent Hangs Over the Fight
Presidential immunity and private litigation have collided before.
In Clinton v. Jones, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 1997 that President Bill Clinton could not use his office to postpone Paula Jones’ civil lawsuit involving alleged conduct that occurred before he became president.
Clinton eventually agreed to pay Jones $850,000 to settle the lawsuit without admitting wrongdoing.
But there is a critical difference between that episode and Trump’s pending Carroll appeal.
The conduct at issue in Clinton v. Jones allegedly occurred before Clinton became president.
Trump’s $83.3 million appeal centers on statements he made while actually serving as president.
That is precisely why the pending petition could force the justices into much more difficult territory.
The Supreme Court Now Faces a Choice
The justices are not required to hear Trump’s case.
They could simply deny certiorari, leaving the enormous judgment intact without deciding the broader constitutional question themselves.
But if the Court accepts the case, it could be forced to draw a line with consequences extending well beyond Donald Trump or E. Jean Carroll.
How much protection does a president receive when speaking publicly from the White House?
Does responding to allegations about personal misconduct constitute an official presidential function?
And can an individual president personally face tens of millions of dollars in damages for statements made through presidential channels while defending himself?
Trump’s lawyers insist the issue reaches the presidency itself, writing that the lower court decision “wrongly eviscerates Presidential immunity.”
That is now the real battle.
The $5 million judgment is finished. The Supreme Court has closed that door.
But an $83.3 million case remains alive — and this time the question before the justices could reach far beyond one verdict, one plaintiff, or one president.
