The Supreme Court has delayed a $5 million jury award against Donald Trump for more than three years, rescheduling his appeal 15 times since February. This judicial inaction effectively defers a financial consequence for a wealthy individual. Simultaneously, the Justice Department launched a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the magazine columnist who secured the verdict.
Trump initially filed his appeal seven months ago, seeking to overturn a federal jury’s finding that he sexually abused and defamed Carroll. The politically sensitive appeal has been set on the court’s agenda and rescheduled 15 times since it was first yanked without explanation 116 days ago, a day before justices were to meet privately.
The delay has directly benefited Trump by deferring the $5 million verdict awarded by a jury in New York. Including interest, Trump currently owes Carroll over $100 million from two separate judgments.
Last month, the Justice Department launched a criminal investigation into Carroll, focusing on whether she committed perjury in testimony tied to the pending appeal. This state action targets the accuser in a case against a powerful figure.
Trump’s attorneys told the Supreme Court in a January filing, five months ago, that 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.” Trump has described Carroll’s claims as “false” and “Liberal Lawfare.”
Steve Vladeck of the Georgetown School of Law, a CNN Supreme Court analyst, stated that 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 suggested that “The only other explanation is some kind of special solicitude for President Trump.”
The State's Protection of Capital
The nation’s highest court almost never explains its handling of pending appeals and has not done so in the Carroll case. The court’s action of “rescheduling” the appeal, rather than “relisting” it, suggests the case is not being discussed at all, at least not formally. Only one other case has been rescheduled as often in the current term.
Carroll sued Trump in 2019 for defamation, and 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 its fourth year. The 2022 case went to trial first, resulting in the $5 million jury award now pending at the Supreme Court.
Last year, one year ago, 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. A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit, all appointed by Democratic presidents, ruled unanimously that 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.
The 2019 case went to trial second and resulted in an $83 million judgment against Trump. A federal appeals court panel affirmed this damages award, finding it “reasonable in light of the extraordinary and egregious facts.” The full 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to revisit that decision in late April, about two months ago.
Trump’s attorneys wrote on June 2, 21 days ago, that they intend to appeal the second case to the Supreme Court “within the next month” and suggested, “The court may wish to consider the petitions together.” This move would almost certainly push a decision on whether to hear or deny the Carroll matter into the fall.
Legal Machinery Against the Dispossessed
In a separate ruling on Monday, 1 day ago, the Supreme Court reinstated a murder conviction in the 47th year since the disappearance of 6-year-old Etan Patz. The justices, by a 6-3 vote, granted an appeal from New York prosecutors who urged them to undo a federal appeals court decision that had overturned the verdict. The three liberal justices dissented.
The majority, in an unsigned opinion, agreed 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 justices wrote, “The Second Circuit exceeded its authority in holding that Hernandez is entitled to relief.”
Pedro Hernandez, 64, has been serving a sentence of 25 years to life in prison. His lawyers stated they were “terribly disappointed” and said, “We firmly believe that an innocent man is in jail for a crime that he did not commit.” They emphasized that Hernandez’s admission to police came after detectives queried him for about seven hours before reading him his rights and recording the interview. Hernandez’s lawyers claim he confessed falsely because of a mental illness that sometimes made him hallucinate.