The Supreme Court has rescheduled consideration of President Donald Trump's appeal of the $5 million E. Jean Carroll verdict 15 times since February, delaying the jury award for more than three years and, as of June 22, 2026, had not yet reached a decision. The repeated delays have deferred enforcement of a civil judgment against a sitting president while raising questions about the court's handling of politically sensitive cases.
As the justices prepared to meet behind closed doors on February 27, they had before them an appeal involving Trump, who is seeking to overturn a federal jury's finding that he sexually abused and defamed magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll. But a day before the justices held that private meeting, the Trump case was yanked without explanation. Since then, the politically sensitive appeal, which Trump initially filed seven months ago, has been set on the court's agenda and rescheduled 15 times. Only one other case has been rescheduled as often in the current term, according to a CNN analysis.
Unprecedented Pattern of Delays
Since Trump filed his appeal seven months ago, the president lost a separate $83 million case involving Carroll, and the Justice Department launched a criminal investigation into the magazine columnist. The nation's highest court almost never explains its handling of pending appeals and has not done so in the Carroll case. The delay could be because one or more justices is writing an opinion about the case, or the court could be waiting for other appeals involving the Trump and Carroll dispute that are expected soon.
Steve Vladeck of the Georgetown School of Law and a CNN Supreme Court analyst said, "The oddity here isn't just that the court has rescheduled one of the Carroll cases 15 times, it's the absence of a persuasive justification for it having done so." Vladeck said the most logical explanation is that the court is waiting for the other expected appeals, even though the cases deal with different legal issues. He said, "The only other explanation is some kind of special solicitude for President Trump — which runs into the problem that this case, at least, is about conduct he engaged in when he was not in office."
The Legal Background
Carroll sued Trump in 2019 for defamation and then she sued him again in 2022 for defamation and battery after the state enacted a law allowing victims of sexual abuse to file civil claims for past incidents. In an unusual quirk, the second case, filed in 2022, went to trial first and the jury awarded Carroll $5 million. That is the case already pending at the Supreme Court. The 2019 case went to trial second and resulted in an $83 million judgment against Trump. The first case, filed in 2019, is expected to land at the Supreme Court in the coming days. Including interest, Trump owes Carroll over $100 million.
Carroll's 2022 suit alleged that he sexually assaulted her in a New York department store in the mid-1990s and defamed her by claiming she made up the story to boost sales of a book. Trump, who has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, has claimed U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who oversaw the civil trial, made numerous errors by allowing the jury to hear testimony from two women who alleged Trump sexually assaulted them years ago.
Trump also argued that the judge should not have let the jurors see the "Access Hollywood tape," which captured Trump in 2005 on a hot mic saying he gropes and kisses women. Trump was heard saying on the recording, "You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything, … Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." Kaplan concluded the recording was relevant for the jury to hear because it added to the probability that Trump "in fact has had contact with women's genitalia in the past without their consent, or that he has attempted to do so."
Appeals Court Rulings
Last year, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's $5 million verdict against Trump, ruling the trial judge did not make errors that would warrant a new trial. One year ago, Trump lost an effort to have the appeal reviewed by the full bench of judges and, months later, he appealed to the Supreme Court.
Trump's attorneys told the Supreme Court in a January filing, "It is deeply damaging to the fabric of our republic for President Trump, in the midst of a historic presidency, to have to take his focus away from his singular and unique duties as chief executive to continue fighting against decades-old, false allegations and the myriad wrongs throughout this baseless case." They added, "This mistreatment of a President cannot be allowed to stand."
In urging the high court to deny the case, Carroll's attorneys argued that the district court acted within its jurisdiction in how it handled the evidence. In a highly technical brief at the Supreme Court dealing with rules of evidence, Carroll's attorneys focused largely on the 2nd Circuit decision upholding the verdict. The court's duty was simply to decide whether a jury could reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Trump committed an act of sexual assault, a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit, all three of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents, ruled unanimously. "If it could so find, the court had the discretion to admit the evidence," the panel said.
Those written arguments were all submitted to the Supreme Court by the end of January. And that is when the delays began. During its October-to-June term, the Supreme Court justices meet privately in conferences once a week to discuss whether to grant or deny pending appeals. It takes four justices to grant a case. But appeals are often held for multiple conferences for many reasons.
Rescheduling vs. Relisting
Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court almost always holds an appeal for at least a second meeting before granting the appeal and scheduling oral arguments, for instance. And sometimes, cases are repeatedly relisted and denied without explanation. Sometimes cases are held to give a justice an opportunity to dissent from a decision to deny it. Sometimes, the justices seem likely to be waiting for a similar case to make its way up through the lower courts. Often, the reason is opaque.
Usually, when a case is held, it is "relisted" for future conferences. The Supreme Court has been relisting multiple appeals involving local bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines since December, for instance. But what is different about the case involving Carroll is that the president's appeal is being "rescheduled." That suggests it is not being discussed at all, at least not formally.
Last year, the court rescheduled a case dealing with the federal government's sweeping power to prosecute crimes on Native American lands 17 times, holding it over its summer recess. In the end, the petition was denied. Only one other case has been rescheduled as many times as the Carroll appeal. That case, which involves a housing police officer in Ohio who shot and killed a suspect who was fleeing with a gun in his hand, has also rescheduled 15 times.
A spokesperson for the Supreme Court did not respond to a request for comment. Carroll's attorneys declined to comment. Trump's legal team referred to a prior comment on the case in which he described Carroll's claims as "false" and "Liberal Lawfare."
Changing Legal Landscape
Much has changed in the legal brawl between Trump and Carroll since the case made its way to the Supreme Court's docket. The Justice Department launched a criminal investigation into Carroll last month that is focused on whether she committed perjury in testimony tied to the pending appeal.
Meanwhile, a second case involving Trump and Carroll appears to be on the way. Carroll sued Trump again over statements he made about her in 2019. A jury in New York found those statements were defamatory and ordered Trump to pay $83 million in damages. A federal appeals court panel affirmed the damages award, finding it "reasonable in light of the extraordinary and egregious facts" and rejecting several of Trump's legal challenges. Among them, the appeals court found that Trump had previously waived any claim of presidential immunity and said the Supreme Court's decision in 2024 involving presidential immunity did not alter its view.
The full 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to revisit that decision about two months ago. In an unusual letter in the Carroll case already pending at the Supreme Court, Trump's attorneys wrote 21 days ago that they intend to appeal the second case to the Supreme Court "within the next month." They added, "The court may wish to consider the petitions together." Given the way scheduling works at the Supreme Court, that round would almost certainly push a decision on whether to hear or deny the Carroll matter into the fall.
On Monday, the court once again added the case to its agenda for Thursday.
Supreme Court Reinstates Patz Murder Conviction
Separately, the Supreme Court on Monday reinstated a murder conviction in the 1979 disappearance of 6-year-old Etan Patz. The justices, by a 6-3 vote, granted an appeal from New York prosecutors who had urged them to undo a federal appeals court decision that overturned the verdict. The three liberal justices dissented. Prosecutors had been preparing to try Pedro Hernandez for a third time. His first trial ended in a mistrial.
The unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed Hernandez' murder and kidnapping conviction in the second trial because of how the judge had answered a question from jurors. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had called the basis for overturning the conviction "a slender reed" that essentially ignored a five-month-long trial with 66 witnesses.
The justices agreed, in an unsigned opinion, that federal courts should not second-guess state courts under a 1996 federal law intended to reduce federal court oversight of state criminal trials. "The Second Circuit exceeded its authority in holding that Hernandez is entitled to relief," the justices wrote. Hernandez, 64, has been serving a sentence of 25 years to life in prison.
Bragg said, "It's impossible to imagine the pain of losing a child, waiting so long for justice and having to brace for more proceedings," and said he hoped the Patz family gained some peace of mind from the ruling. Hernandez' lawyers said they were "terribly disappointed" and said, "We firmly believe that an innocent man is in jail for a crime that he did not commit."
Hernandez made statements to confidants years ago about having killed a child or young man in New York, and he later told police he had killed Etan. His lawyers say he confessed falsely because of a mental illness that sometimes made him hallucinate. They emphasized that his admission to police came after detectives queried him for about seven hours before reading him his rights and recording the interview. Hernandez then repeated his confession on tape, at least twice.
Etan vanished while walking to his downtown Manhattan school bus stop on May 25, 1979. Hernandez worked at a nearby convenience shop at the time, but the Maple Shade, New Jersey, resident did not become a suspect until the 14th year. Etan was among the first missing children ever to appear on milk cartons, and the anniversary of his disappearance became National Missing Children's Day.
Hernandez already has been tried twice. A jury deadlocked in the 11th year, and then a different panel of jurors convicted him at a retrial in the ninth year. During deliberations, the 2017 jurors asked a complicated question: If they decided Hernandez did not confess voluntarily when he had not been read his rights yet, must they disregard his other confessions? The then-judge responded simply, "the answer is no." The jury went on to convict.
In overturning that verdict, the appeals court said the jury's question should have gotten a more fulsome answer, including the possibility of discounting all the confessions. Hernandez' retrial had been expected to start in September, and his lawyers and prosecutors were due to give the trial judge a status update next week. Asked about next steps, Bragg said prosecutors would await guidance from appellate judges and the state trial court that has handled the case.
Why This Matters:
The Supreme Court's unprecedented pattern of rescheduling the Trump appeal 15 times raises fundamental questions about judicial process and the separation of powers. The three-year delay in enforcing a civil jury verdict demonstrates how procedural mechanisms can effectively defer legal accountability, particularly when a defendant holds the nation's highest office. The court's silence on its reasoning leaves observers to speculate whether institutional factors are influencing case management. Trump's attorneys have argued that forcing a sitting president to focus on decades-old civil litigation undermines executive function, a claim that touches on legitimate concerns about presidential duties. Meanwhile, the Justice Department's criminal investigation into Carroll adds another layer of complexity to litigation that has already cost Trump over $100 million in judgments and interest. The court's decision in the Patz case, by contrast, demonstrates judicial restraint toward state court proceedings and reinforces the 1996 federal law limiting federal interference in state criminal trials—a principle consistent with federalism and respect for state sovereignty in criminal justice matters.