Another chapter in the long saga of legal battles surrounding Donald Trump ends with a clear no – this time from one of the most powerful US courts. By a vote of 8 to 2, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday rejected Trump’s request to reopen the verdict in the E. Jean Carroll case. That leaves him with only the Supreme Court – and that path is far from promising.
At the center of this decision is a verdict handed down by a jury in 2023: Trump was found liable for sexually abusing columnist E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s in a Manhattan department store dressing room and later defaming her. The damages: $5 million. A second defamation case in January 2024 resulted in an additional $83.3 million. Carroll herself explained that she remained silent for more than two decades because she feared no one would believe her. Only after hearing Trump’s “Access Hollywood” tape did she decide to go public with her story.
Trump, however, is fighting not just the verdict but reality itself. His defense argued that the trial was distorted by allegedly improper evidence—such as the infamous recording in which Trump boasts about groping women without consent. They also claimed that other women’s testimonies swayed the jury unfairly. A key defense point was that Carroll received financial support from LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, a critic of Trump. But the court ruled this argument inadmissible—and the appeals court agreed.
Judge Myrna Pérez, appointed by Joe Biden, made this unequivocal in her reasoning: A retrial of a concluded case is not a proper use of en banc review. Such review is only justified in rare cases involving extraordinary legal questions or clear conflicts with precedent. Neither condition applies here. Two Trump-appointed judges—Steven Menashi and Michael Park—dissented, citing a “series of indefensible evidentiary decisions” and arguing the verdict relied on improper character evidence and few reliable facts. They remained in the minority. Three judges recused themselves without explanation. The judicial message is clear: Trump’s arguments fail in court.
Under U.S. legal procedure, Trump had the chance to testify under oath during the trial—but he chose not to. Instead, he left the courtroom dramatically during Carroll’s testimony. A juror later told the press that they interpreted his actions as a sign of guilt and disrespect for the court. Carroll’s attorney Robbie Kaplan commented with her client: Although President Trump continues to try every possible maneuver to challenge the findings of two separate juries, those efforts have failed. He remains liable for sexual assault and defamation.
In a statement, a Trump legal team spokesperson called it a democrats-funded Carroll hoax and framed the ruling as part of the political weaponization of our justice system. President Trump will keep winning against liberal lawfare and remain focused on his mission to make America great again. But that narrative is crumbling. Two jury verdicts in separate trials have independently condemned Trump’s behavior. Despite attacks on the judiciary’s integrity, it has shown remarkable resilience.
On June 24, the next phase of this legal battle begins as the appeals court hears Trump’s appeal in the second Carroll case. A key issue will be whether the Justice Department can substitute Trump as the defendant, potentially allowing him to avoid paying damages. The former federal judge John E. Jones told NBC plainly: No one is above the law – not even a president. With each verdict, that statement gains credibility.
Because beyond all the legal back and forth, one fact remains: Two juries have found a current and former president of the United States liable for sexual abuse and defamation. And not even the loudest campaign rhetoric can change that truth.
English 
German 
