Photo: Well This Is News
Supreme Court rejects Trump's attempt to overturn E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse verdict
High court denies Trump rehearing request in Carroll defamation case
Supreme Court declines Trump's second appeal in $5M Carroll verdict
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court's routine denial of a rehearing motion carries no implicit judgment about whether Trump's legal arguments had merit or whether the jury verdict's reasoning was sound.
- The jury verdicts establishing Trump's liability remain largely unexplored by the Supreme Court, leaving unexamined whether the defamation theory used against a president raises novel First Amendment questions.
- Appellate courts routinely give substantial deference to jury findings in civil cases, making reversals difficult regardless of whether the underlying legal questions are legally settled.
The Analysis
The Supreme Court declined to grant Trump a rehearing in the E. Jean Carroll $5 million judgment, marking the second time the justices have turned away his attempt to overturn the verdict without written explanation. What the coverage everywhere leaves out is the distinction between what the Court refused and what that refusal actually establishes.
The documented facts: On Monday in a routine orders list, the Supreme Court denied Trump's petition for a rehearing of the lower court's judgment finding him liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The petition sought the Court to reconsider its June denial of Trump's initial appeal. No justice filed a dissent requesting the full Court hear the case, which would be the customary signal of serious objection to the denial. The lower court judgment, issued by a jury in May 2024, required Trump to pay Carroll $5 million. A separate verdict from January 2024 found Trump liable for sexual abuse in another case and awarded Carroll $83 million in defamation damages. That verdict remains under Supreme Court review.
Left-leaning outlets frame this as Trump's legal arguments crumbling under judicial scrutiny. MSNBC's framing emphasizes the Supreme Court has now twice rejected his appeal, describing it as another defeat and suggesting the justices see no merit to his position. The left coverage does not acknowledge that the Supreme Court's silence on motions for rehearing is procedurally routine and carries no implicit judicial judgment about the merits of the underlying case. The Court regularly denies such motions without explanation, and the absence of a dissent does not necessarily reflect judicial agreement with the lower court's reasoning.
Right-leaning outlets present the outcome more narrowly, focusing on the procedural fact that the rehearing was denied. The Washington Examiner describes the appeal as a "long-shot effort," acknowledging the difficulty of the legal position without claiming the Supreme Court endorsed the jury verdict's soundness. The right-leaning frame largely avoids triumphalism but also does not engage with the larger question of what the jury verdict itself established or whether Trump's legal arguments had substance.
What neither side fully addresses: The Supreme Court's silence does not establish the legal merits of Trump's arguments or vindicate the jury verdict's reasoning. The justices routinely deny motions for rehearing in cases they have already declined to hear, often without any justice dissenting. That pattern applies across the ideological spectrum and does not reflect a judgment about the underlying case. The more complete picture requires understanding that jury verdicts in civil cases are difficult to overturn on appeal, that appellate courts give substantial deference to jury findings, and that the Supreme Court's denial of review leaves both the jury verdict and Trump's legal arguments largely unexplored by the highest court. What remains undisclosed is whether any justice believed the case raised serious constitutional questions, or whether the denial simply reflected routine application of appellate procedure.
The significant question the coverage leaves unexamined: whether the jury verdict's legal theory, particularly regarding defamation liability for a president's statements, presents novel First Amendment questions the Supreme Court might eventually address in a different case or context. The current denials tell readers only that this particular rehearing request failed, not whether the underlying legal questions are settled.
The Supreme Court's silence on Trump's rehearing petition establishes nothing about the merits of either his legal arguments or Carroll's jury verdict, yet coverage across the ideological spectrum treats the denial as meaningful judicial commentary. Routine denials of rehearing motions, which the Court issues constantly without explanation or dissent, carry no implicit endorsement of lower court reasoning. What remains genuinely unresolved is whether the jury's legal theory on defamation liability for presidential speech presents unsettled First Amendment questions that could emerge in future cases. The current refusal to rehear tells only that this particular motion failed under standard appellate procedure, not whether the constitutional questions underlying the verdict have been judicially examined or settled. Until the Supreme Court actually addresses the First Amendment dimensions of holding a president liable for defamatory statements, claiming this denial vindicates either side misrepresents what the Court's action actually demonstrates.