The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear President Donald Trump’s appeal in the defamation case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, leaving the lower court’s ruling against him in place. As is typical, the Court did not provide a reason for denying the appeal.
The case began after Carroll accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s. Trump denied the allegation and made public statements that Carroll argued harmed her reputation. A federal jury later found Trump guilty of defaming Carroll and awarded her millions of dollars in damages.
By declining to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court did not rule on whether the lower court was right or wrong. Instead, it simply chose not to review the case, meaning the previous ruling remains in effect.
The decision marks another chapter in the long-running legal dispute between Trump and Carroll. Their legal battle has included multiple civil cases, including one in which a jury found that Trump sexually abused Carroll under New York law’s legal definitions, as well as the separate defamation case over his public statements.
With the Supreme Court declining to hear the case, Trump’s effort to overturn the defamation judgment through the nation’s highest court has come to an end. Unless another legal option becomes available, the lower court’s ruling will stand.
In my view, the Supreme Court made the appropriate decision by allowing the lower court’s ruling to stand. Carroll had already prevailed in court, and declining to hear the appeal means that the judgment remains in effect, which shows justice for her.
The case has received widespread attention because of Trump’s role as president and his prominence in American politics. Legal experts also point out that the Supreme Court declines most appeals it receives each year, and a decision not to hear a case should not be interpreted as agreement or disagreement with the lower court’s ruling.
