Appeals Court Denies Trump’s Plea to Rehear $5 Million Verdict in E. Jean Carroll Case

The Underlying Verdict

In May 2023, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found Donald Trump liable for sexual abuse (but not rape, under New York’s narrow statutory definition) and for defaming E. Jean Carroll. The verdict awarded Carroll $5 million in damages.

The factual narrative presented at trial was that Carroll and Trump had a chance encounter at Bergdorf Goodman in the mid‑1990s. Events escalated when Carroll says Trump forced her into a dressing room, assaulted her, and later, when she made public allegations (in 2019 and in subsequent statements), Trump denied them in ways that the jury found defamatory.

In that trial, the judge allowed testimony from two other women who claimed Trump had engaged in similar misconduct, and allowed the jury to view the “Access Hollywood” tape, among other evidentiary decisions. Trump’s defense argued these rulings were in error.

Appeal and Prior Decision

Trump appealed the verdict, contesting those evidentiary rulings and other procedural decisions. On December 30, 2024, a three‑judge panel of the Second Circuit rejected his appeal and affirmed the $5 million verdict. The appeals court found that Trump did not show that the judge’s decisions had deprived him of a fair trial or otherwise prejudiced his substantive rights.

On January 14, 2025, Trump requested rehearing en banc (i.e. before the full appeals court, rather than a panel). On June 13, 2025, the Second Circuit denied that petition. The denial came with a brief per curiam order (i.e. an unsigned order) stating that re‑litigation of the case was not appropriate, implicitly rejecting Trump’s attempt to reargue issues already addressed.

Thus, the $5 million judgment stands, with no further appellate rehearing in that court available.

Legal Issues & Analysis

Rehearing En Banc: Standards and Thresholds

• Rehearing en banc is a rare remedy. It is reserved for cases of exceptional importance, conflicts within the circuit, or to maintain uniformity of decisions

• The Second Circuit’s order refusing en banc review noted that merely rearguing the case was insufficient

• The court implicitly found that the prior panel opinion adequately addressed the claims and that no compelling reason existed to revisit them

Given that standard, Trump’s arguments would have needed to show that the panel’s decision was flawed in law, inconsistent with circuit precedent, or that there were compelling policy or constitutional implications requiring full court review. He did not persuade the court.

Evidentiary Rulings & Abuse of Discretion Review

Much of Trump’s appeal targeted the trial judge’s evidentiary decisions:

• Admission of testimony from two other accusers (evidence of other acts)

• Allowance of the Access Hollywood video

• Whether Trump was unduly restricted in cross‑examination or in introducing evidence (e.g. about a donor or motivations)

On appeal, the standard is abuse of discretion for evidentiary rulings. The appeals court found no abuse, meaning it concluded that the trial court’s decisions were within the bounds of acceptable judgment.

Furthermore, the court evaluated whether any alleged error was prejudicial to Trump’s substantial rights — i.e. whether it affected the outcome. The appeals court concluded the record as whole supported the verdict, meaning that even if some rulings were questionable, they did not overturn the result.

Scope of Review After Denial of Rehearing

With the en banc request denied, Trump’s further appellate opportunities are:

• Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court (if he can meet certiorari criteria)

• Possibly collateral challenges under limited doctrines (e.g. due process, newly discovered evidence) — though such paths are narrow in civil litigation

Meanwhile, Carroll may push to enforce the judgment or seek to collect it (or seek additional judgments on related claims). The appeals court’s denial removes one procedural roadblock but does not itself handle enforcement.

Broader Context & Parallel $83.3 Million Verdict

This $5 million suit is one of two major Carroll cases. The other involves defamation claims tied to Trump’s 2019 statements, where a jury awarded $83.3 million in damages. That larger verdict has also faced appeals, including arguments about presidential immunity and trial errors.

In September 2025, the Second Circuit rejected Trump’s appeal of that $83.3 million award, upholding the damages and rejecting claims of immunity. That decision further cements Carroll’s legal victories against Trump.

The dual upholding of both judgments underscores a judicial consensus in the Second Circuit that the trials were properly conducted and that Trump’s defenses (especially around evidentiary issues and immunity) lacked merit.

Implications & Significance

For Carroll & Judgment Enforcement

The denial of rehearing means that the $5 million verdict is more likely to survive the appellate gauntlet. Carroll’s legal team may continue efforts to enforce payment, attach bonds, or seek collection remedies.

Given Trump’s substantial legal liabilities already in place, this outcome strengthens Carroll’s position. It also sends a signal to litigants that these judgments are not being reversed lightly.

For Trump’s Broader Legal Strategy

Trump’s legal strategy, often to delay and contest at every step, is constrained now by this decision. The en banc denial narrows his options and may increase pressure to seek resolution or negotiate in related cases.

His remaining path is likely the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Court takes only a small fraction of petitions, and civil defamation/sexual abuse cases like this are rarely granted review absent unusual constitutional issues.

A related point: Trump had argued that recent Supreme Court rulings expanding presidential immunity (in criminal or official acts) might apply to civil defamation. The appeals courts have consistently rejected that extension, distinguishing between official vs. private acts. That means many of his immunity arguments face steep uphill battles.

For Precedent & Defamation / Sexual Abuse Litigation

The decisions affirm that courts are willing to permit broader evidence, such as prior act and character evidence, in sexual abuse / defamation suits, subject to proper analysis for prejudice and relevance. The appellate affirmances suggest that trial courts have discretion in such sensitive contexts, so long as fairness is preserved.

It also reinforces that defamation involving public figures (in this case a former U.S. President) still can result in substantial liability, especially when a jury finds actual malice and harm. These cases may serve as reference points in future high‑profile defamation or abuse suits.

What’s Next

• Trump may file a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the $5 million verdict

• Carroll may intensify enforcement efforts, attaching assets or securing judgments across jurisdictions

• The $83.3 million case’s appeals continue (or may already be exhausted, depending on timing) and could also see Supreme Court involvement

• The outcomes may influence how future plaintiffs in sexual abuse and defamation suits strategize evidence presentation, appeals, and seeking presidential immunity arguments