NY appeals court rejects bid to overturn Trump's convictions in E. Jean Carroll case
On Friday the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York declined Trump's request for a court's full bench to rehear his case. The decision leaves in place a December 2024 ruling by a three-judge panel upholding the 2023 jury verdict, which ordered Trump to pay Carroll $5 million in damages.
Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, welcomed the decision.
'E. Jean Carroll is very pleased with today's ruling,' she said. '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.'
The case is one of two civil suits Carroll, now 81, has filed against Trump, both stemming from his public denials of her 2019 accusation that he sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan in 1996.
In October 2022, Trump defamed Carroll on Truth Social by denying her claim as a hoax.
Carroll's first lawsuit, related to Trump's 2019 statements, ended in January 2024 with an $83.3 million defamation verdict in her favor. Trump is also appealing that outcome. Oral arguments in that appeal are scheduled for June 24.
The lawsuit at the center of Friday's ruling was filed in 2022 after New York temporarily lifted its statute of limitations for certain sexual assault claims. It included both defamation and battery claims related to Carroll's original allegations and Trump's more recent comments.
Two judges—Steven Menashi and Michael Park, both appointed by Trump—dissented from Friday's decision, arguing the court should have reconsidered the case.
Menashi accused the panel of deviating from precedent and criticized the trial judge for excluding key evidence and admitting 'stale witness testimony' from another woman who accused Trump of assault during an unrelated encounter.
The majority of the appellate court rejected that view. Four judges countered the dissent, writing that the appeal did not meet the high bar required for review, which is typically reserved for cases involving significant legal questions or conflicts in appellate precedent.
Judges Denny Chin and Susan Carney, who previously ruled against Trump in the December decision, issued a statement supporting the majority and directly refuting Menashi's arguments.
'Even on his own terms, our dissenting colleague fails to explain why any purported error warrants a retrial or full court review,' they wrote.
Trump's final chance to overturn the verdict lies with the Supreme Court. His team has indicated that he will ask the highest court to hear his appeal, but the court is not obligated to do so.
According to NBC News, in a statement Friday, a spokesperson for Trump described the lawsuit as a 'Democrat-funded Carroll Hoax' and said the former president 'will keep winning against Liberal Lawfare, as he is focusing on his mission to Make America Great Again.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Count 'em all — Trump has no authority to muck with 2030 Census Bureau count
Not caring about the U.S. Constitution is a regular refrain for President Donald Trump, who now wants to exclude undocumented people from the 2030 census count — a nonstarter as much else is in this bizarro world we now inhabit, promulgated via a screed on his Truth Social platform — is both a terrible idea and certainly a rehash. Trump attempted something similar during his first term in office as the 2020 census closed in, deciding to suddenly include a citizenship question in the count, a move promptly blocked by the courts. Now Trump's trying to go whole hog and exclude the undocumented altogether, in doing so going against the plain language of the Constitution, which unambiguously mandates the count 'of the whole number of persons' in each state. The chief executive certainly seems to care less about the letter of the law and the orders of judges this time around, though these will still slap him down. It's worth noting, though, that even if and when a judge makes the easiest ruling of a career and strikes down any directive to exclude from the census anyone based on citizenship or immigration status, that's not necessarily mission accomplished. Trump and Stephen Miller's all-out campaign of shock and awe and terror against immigrants around the country is designed at least in part to create an environment of fear and concern that will discourage people from participating in all facets of civic and public life, including the mandated decennial count. The Census Bureau itself found that it probably failed to count up to millions of noncitizens, largely because many declined to participate out of a fear that it would put them on the administration's radar and target list. So Trump was able to accomplish some of his aims, even without the directive technically being in place, and that was in an environment less hostile than now. New York infamously lost a House seat because it came up just 89 people short in the 2020 count, which is almost certainly a partial result of Trump's meddling last time around. That extra seat could have made a real difference in a House of Representatives that is so narrowly controlled by the GOP, which itself seems to understand itself as a mere arm of the Trump administration. Neither Trump, nor his top echelon of grifters and ideologues are going to be personally conducting the census count, though. That is left to a small army of temporary public servants overseen by career officials within the Census Bureau, and these folks will hopefully recall that their responsibility is to this important constitutional mandate and not to Trump. The one-time real estate promoter is fully incapable of seeing anything except in terms of monetary or political gain, and probably sees an attempt to exclude the undocumented from the census as good red meat for the base. However, the census guides everything in the United States — not just apportionment and representation in the Congress and the Electoral College, but disaster planning, disease preparedness, allocation of federal resources, and all manner of private-sector uses like demographic data for business development and so on. Ironically, huge chunks of those that would go uncounted under Trump's illegal decree would be in the red states like Florida and Texas, which Trump claims to want to support. The whole idea is pointless, damaging and unconstitutional. _____
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Investors are frogs in a Trumpian pot
Markets are bending the knee to Donald Trump, opening up the possibility of a new level of recklessness in the US president's economic Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
Congress must hear from Jeffrey Epstein's victims about Ghislaine Maxwell's role
Trump is openly mulling a pardon for a known liar who could benefit from spinning a favorable tale about him, while two Congress members are using their posts to give the women she victimized a voice. Lawyers for a convicted child sex trafficker got right to the point recently while seeking to prevent the public release of testimony from the grand jury that indicted her. "Jeffrey Epstein is dead. Ghislaine Maxwell is not," they wrote in an Aug. 5 legal brief, opposing the release of those records. That blunt and binary assessment – Epstein died from an apparent suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, Maxwell is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence – didn't have much to say about the other people involved in this metastasizing scandal in Donald Trump's second term as president: the victimized underage girls who are still seeking justice years later. Maxwell has been the center of attention – and, so far, a beneficiary of it – in this scandal. But in three weeks, we'll focus instead on some of those victims. Sounds like they have plenty to share about her. House Speaker Johnson wants Epstein files to just go away U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, have jointly announced that they will hold a Sept. 3 news conference at the U.S. Capitol to hear from those victims and their attorneys while pressing for passage of their bipartisan legislation to release what has become known as the "Epstein files." That bill, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, has 11 Republican and 33 Democratic cosponsors. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, found a vote on that bill so concerning in July that he sent the House members home early for the summer break to avoid it. Opinion: Epstein accomplice Maxwell angles for a Trump pardon. Would she lie to help him? "We're not going to play political games with this," Johnson said at a July 22 news conference while openly, publicly playing political games to snuff out a bipartisan move for transparency. Johnson's punt bought a little time for Trump, who used to hang out with Epstein and Maxwell and has been haunted of late by a 2002 New York magazine interview, in which he said Epstein was "a lot of fun to be with" and "likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." All eyes now on Ghislaine Maxwell and possible pardon But this isn't going away, despite Trump's flailing efforts to quiet the controversy. And Massie and Khanna are platforming exactly who we need to hear from in this scandal – the victims – while Maxwell's turn in the congressional spotlight is still very much up in the air. She was subpoenaed in July to testify from behind bars this week for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. But that was postponed indefinitely, in part because Maxwell has an appeal for her conviction being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court and because she demanded congressional immunity, and the committee refused. That's a rare setback for Maxwell, who has used her infamy to rack up something of a winning streak as Trump struggles with the Epstein scandal. Maxwell, who was convicted of recruiting underage victims and coaching them to have sex with Epstein while sometimes joining in, got her way when a federal judge in New York on Aug. 11 declined to release that grand jury testimony. Two days of secretive interviews in July with a top Department of Justice official – who once served as Trump's private lawyer – won Maxwell a transfer from a women's prison in Florida to a much cushier federal camp in Texas. Her lawyers are now angling to win her a pardon from Trump, something he feels regularly obliged to note publicly that he is allowed to do. Opinion: Republicans in Congress head home to angry voters. So much for summer break. So Trump is openly mulling a pardon for a known liar who could benefit from spinning a favorable tale about him in this scandal. And Massie and Khanna are using their congressional posts to give voice to those Maxwell victimized for Epstein. Really, who are you rooting for here? If you find yourself on Team Maxwell, a growing chorus among many of Trump's most MAGA media supporters, you're going to bat for a woman who recruited and sexually abused children. That's ugly stuff, a perversion of political partisanship so profoundly grotesque that it has broken through and overcome that constant stream of chaos Trump has been deploying to distract America. This scandal won't dissipate in the summer heat, just because that's what Trump wants. American voters – Republicans, Democrats and independents – are calling for transparency. Congress must provide it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.
