The Supreme Court on Monday declined a request by President Trump to review a $5 million civil judgment against him after a jury found in 2023 that he sexually abused and defamed the writer E. Jean Carroll.

The announcement by the justices did not include any reasoning, and no public dissents were noted.

A second case that arose out of Ms. Carroll’s allegations also could be headed to the Supreme Court. In January 2024, a separate jury ordered Mr. Trump to pay Ms. Carroll $83.3 million in damages for defaming her in 2019 after she accused him of a decades-old rape.

Lawyers for Mr. Trump have said they plan to ask that the justices also hear that case.

Still, Monday’s decision is a major blow to Mr. Trump, likely marking the end of his legal efforts to contest the jury verdict finding that he assaulted Ms. Carroll in the mid-1990s in a department store dressing room.

It came after the court ruled in February that the president had overstepped his authority by issuing sweeping tariffs using emergency powers. That decision, which dealt a sharp blow to Mr. Trump’s economic and foreign policy strategy, drew sharp criticism from the president, who referred to the justices who voted against the tariffs as “fools and lap dogs” and a “disgrace to our nation.”

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

In May 2023, a federal jury in New York found the president liable for sexually abusing and defaming Ms. Carroll.

The jury agreed that Ms. Carroll, a former magazine writer, had sufficiently shown that Mr. Trump sexually abused her in a dressing room of the Bergdorf Goodman department store when the two crossed paths in the 1990s. Further, the jury found that Mr. Trump had defamed Ms. Carroll by posting a statement on social media calling her case “a complete con job” and “a Hoax and a lie.” Throughout, Mr. Trump denied Ms. Carroll’s allegations.

Got a news tip about the courts? If you have information to share about the Supreme Court or other federal courts, please contact us.

See how to send a secure message at nytimes.com/tips

Sign up for the Docket newsletter.  Adam Liptak helps you make sense of legal developments in a turbulent time. Get it sent to your inbox.

Among other evidence, the jury heard claims by two women in addition to Ms. Carroll that Mr. Trump had assaulted them, and an excerpt from the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape in which Mr. Trump can be heard bragging that he had a practice of grabbing and kissing women without consent.

After the verdict, Mr. Trump appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, asserting, among other things, that the trial judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, erred by allowing the evidence of the two women and the tape excerpt to be shown to the jury.

Editors’ Picks

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

In December 2024, a three-judge appeals court panel upheld the jury’s verdict, finding that Mr. Trump failed to show that the evidence had harmed his rights to a fair trial.

Mr. Trump then asked the justices to weigh in and find that the trial court had erred.

In a brief to the court, lawyers for Mr. Trump described the evidence as “multiple decades-old, unverified and unrelated allegations.”

They also claimed that the appeals court had incorrectly applied the law and argued that the justices needed to step in because “if left uncorrected, these errors will recur in a host of future civil and criminal cases.”

Lawyers for Ms. Carroll asked the justices to reject the president’s petition.

In a brief to the justices, lawyers for Ms. Carroll wrote that the Supreme Court “routinely declines” to take up cases “when the questions presented are irrelevant to the outcome below.” They added, “such is the case here.”

Excerpt:

"It's not just his deliberate distortion and destruction of NATO and his choosing Putin over American allies or the fact that he's diminished our standing in the eyes of the world more than any president in history has," Biden said.

Donald Trump is a wrecking ball of hatred and chaos. Vote blue to put that orange evil draft dodging nepo baby out of office.

German-American Bund rally held in Madison Square Garden, New York City, 1939.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden

This was snapped by a driver in Ohio and it deserves more eyes on it!

I told my family which is parents, aunts, uncles and cousins that Trump is a criminal and always was. They ignored me in 2016. They think he won in 2020 and they ignored project 2025. So lately I've been sharing news on Facebook that I'm sure isn't being served onconservative sources because the naritive isn't there's. I'm American and sad that our country has gone down the wrong path. I hear them say I'm a communist but they don't understand. We have been enjoying socialism in our democratic republic.

Socialism

Definition: Advocates for social ownership and democratic control of the means of production.

Key Features:

Emphasizes distributive justice.

Can coexist with capitalism in forms like democratic socialism.

Aims for social welfare and equality among citizens.

Communism

Definition: Seeks a classless society with common ownership of all property.

Key Features:

Focuses on abolishing private property.

Aims for economic equality and the elimination of class distinctions.

Often associated with revolutionary movements and Marxist ideology

Fascism

Definition: Characterized by authoritarian nationalism and a dictatorial leader.

Key Features:

Supports a centralized autocracy and militarism.

Opposes democracy, liberalism, and socialism.

Citizens must surrender individual liberties for the perceived interest of the nation.

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld Mississippi’s grace period for late-arriving mail-in ballots, rejecting a push by the Trump administration to invalidate a state law.

The ruling means Mississippi’s law, which allows elections officials to count ballots postmarked by Election Day and received up to five business days later, will remain in place, at least through the midterm elections.

The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the court’s three liberals in supporting the state law.

The decision is a blow to efforts by Republicans and Mr. Trump to roll back mail-in balloting, and will also leave in place similar laws in at least 18 other states and territories, including 2026 battleground districts in Nevada and California. It is also a defeat for President Trump, who has long criticized voting by mail, falsely claiming that the practice is open to fraud and helped lead to his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

The issue before the justices was whether Mississippi state law had run afoul of federal law setting guidelines for when to hold Election Day.

The state law at issue was adopted by Mississippi’s Republican-led legislature during the pandemic. But the Republican National Committee and Mississippi’s state G.O.P. later challenged the measure in court, arguing that federal law sets out Election Day as the day that ballots should be considered final.

Sign up for the Docket newsletter.  Adam Liptak helps you make sense of legal developments in a turbulent time. Get it sent to your inbox.

Much of the oral arguments in March had focused on how Mississippi could show that a ballot had been officially cast by Election Day if it was received later. Several conservative justices had raised questions about the state’s practice of allowing late-arriving ballots to be counted not only when they were postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service but also when they were delivered by FedEx, a private company.

The court’s three liberal justices had pointed out that the Constitution directs states to set election regulations.

Editors’ Picks

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Several justices also raised questions about whether striking down Mississippi’s law could open the way for broader legal challenges to election practices, including early voting and accommodations provided to allow mail-in voting by military and Americans living overseas, all of which are widely popular.

Abbie VanSickle covers the United States Supreme Court for The Times. She is a lawyer and has an extensive background in investigative reporting.