Justices to consider whether to weigh in on $5 million verdict against Trump at at next conference
Source: Yahoo! News/SCOTUSBlog
Wed, January 28, 2026 at 5:14 PM EST
When the justices hold their private conference on Friday, Feb. 20, the petitions for review that they are slated to consider will include one from President Donald Trump, asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on the 2023 verdict against him in a civil suit brought by E. Jean Carroll. Trump calls the lawsuit facially implausible and politically motivated; Carroll urges the court to deny Trumps petition, telling the justices that the verdict would stand regardless of their ruling.
Carroll, a journalist known for writing a popular advice column for Elle for 27 years, filed her lawsuit in 2022. She alleged that Trump had sexually abused her in a dressing room at a luxury department store in Manhattan in 1996 and that he had defamed her in a 2022 social media post calling her accusations, among other things, a complete con job and a Hoax. Carroll relied on a New York state law enacted that year, which gave adult victims of sexual abuse one year to sue their abusers, even if it would have otherwise been too late to do so.
In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll, and awarded her $5 million. Trump appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which issued an opinion in December 2024 upholding the verdict. In June 2025, the full 2nd Circuit turned down Trumps request to reconsider the case.
In his petition for review, filed by lawyers from the James Otis Law Group (a firm founded by D. John Sauer, Trumps solicitor general), Trump stressed that he had clearly and consistently denied that this supposed incident ever occurred. He contended that Carroll did not have any evidence to corroborate her accusations, and he argued that she had waited more than 20 years to falsely accuse Donald Trump, who she politically opposes, until after he became the 45th President, when she could maximize political injury to him and profit for herself.
Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/justices-consider-whether-weigh-5-221423911.html
REFERENCES
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143563087
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143599036
Buddyzbuddy
(2,254 posts)Maybe she plotted to entice him all of those years ago into sexually assaulting her and waiting until he would eventually become President so she could use the opportunity to embarrass him politically. Yeah that seems very plausible.
About as plausible as her wanting some stinking, short fingered, fat orange pig to attack her. You perverted, impotent, imbecile.
mdbl
(8,197 posts)Something they should have rejected outright if they weren't such corrupt a-holes.
doesn't Jones v Clinton already address this completely!?!? I mean, I know the corrupt six have no respect for precedent and all, but sheesh. That case is what, 30 years old at best?
Du916
(152 posts)Given his history with Coke cans and pubic hairs, among other things? He likely has a pre-formed bias that would make it hard for him to remain objective?