Judges rule against Trump appeal in E. Jean Carroll case
The three-judge panel issued a mandate to affirm the previous district court ruling despite the president's attempts to appeal the ruling that sided with Carroll, who claimed that he sexually abused her at a New York City department store in the mid-1990s.
'Thursday, July 10th, 2025 So long, Old Man! The United States Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, bids thee farewell,' Carroll wrote in a post celebrating the ruling on X.
However, Trump may attempt to submit another appeal to be considered for review before the Supreme Court. He has 90 days to submit a request to the high court.
A White House spokesperson described Carroll's case as 'liberal lawfare' in a statement sent to CNBC.
'The American People are supporting President Trump in historic numbers, and they demand an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded Carroll Hoaxes, the defense of which the Attorney General has determined is legally required to be taken over by the Department of Justice because Carroll based her false claims on the President's official acts, including statements from the White House,' the spokesperson told the outlet.
The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
a minute ago
- Bloomberg
Trump's Caucasus Gambit to Open New East-West Trade Corridor
Along a mountainous stretch of the South Caucasus lies a potentially important trade route—one that straddles a series of geopolitical flashpoints that have set off countless conflicts over the centuries, right up into recent years. And it's about to be named after Donald Trump.
Miami Herald
31 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Speaking out for immigrants has cost me, but Miami Republicans' silence is worse
This past week, I was heartened by the reaction to recent articles in the Miami Herald and New York Times discussing my civic engagement in defense of decency, compassion and justice for immigrants. I spoke not only as a Cuban American, but as an American deeply troubled by the cruelty inflicted on people — especially Latinos — in our state and country by President Trump's immigration policies. Many reached out in support. A few disagreed. I write now not to those who cheered, but to those who scorned, and more importantly, to those who remain silent. I did not come to this moment lightly. I crossed a personal Rubicon from which there is no return. But it had to be done. Let me set the record straight: I am no leader — just one voice hoping to awaken a slumbering moral majority. I have always resisted bullies and abusers quietly. But quiet action in the face of loud injustice is a form of complicity. That ends now. I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I am an American — an immigrant who came here with nothing, became a citizen, served in the Army, and owe this country a debt I can never repay. I believe in the rule of law, strong borders and the fair removal of those who break our laws. But I also believe in humanity and the right of every person to be treated with dignity and due process. I will never forget how this country embraced my family when we arrived with only hope in its promise. I am the son of a father who taught courage and a mother who taught compassion. Educated by Jesuits, I live by their motto — 'men for others' — and their belief that love must act. When cruelty becomes policy and injustice becomes normalized, love must raise its voice. That is why I can no longer remain silent as Miami's Republican U.S. Reps. Maria Elvira Salazar, Carlos Giménez and Mario Diaz-Balart shrink from their responsibility to stand against Trump's dehumanizing immigration agenda. They are Cuban Americans and children of immigrants, just like me. They know the pain of exile. Yet in the face of a bully president who separated children from their parents, vilified immigrants and exploited fear for power, they say and do nothing, though Salazar has sponsored the Dignity Act to provide legal status to some undocumented immigrants. Their silence is not neutrality. It is cowardice. Speaking out has come at a cost. A bag of raw meat was recently left on my driveway with an ominous note: 'We know you love your dogs.' Weeks later, an unfamiliar man pulled up beside me, called me by name, and warned me to 'Stop talking.' I won't lie — it shook me. But it did not silence me. It steeled me. I've long feared heights. During my military service in the Vietnam War, I forced myself to jump from planes over and over until fear became endurance. I was as afraid on my last jump as my first, but I kept jumping. To those who try to intimidate me, know this: I am not afraid. You will not bully me into submission. You will not quiet the truth. And you will not stop what must come next. The soul of our country is not for sale. Our values are not negotiable. When our representatives lack the courage to stand for what is right, it falls to citizens like you and me to speak up — and act. Very soon, I will act again and speak out even more forcefully, alongside others who still believe in an indivisible nation dedicated to liberty and justice for all. Not for Republicans. Not for Democrats. But for Americans. We can be better than this. We must be. Miguel 'Mike' B. Fernandez is the CEO of MBF Healthcare Partners in Coral Gables. He is a Cuban-American community activist and philanthropist.
Boston Globe
31 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Ivy League schools are forking over millions under deals with Trump. Here's where the money's going.
Both deals with the Ivy League schools came as they faced complaints they had allowed antisemitism to proliferate on campus during protests against the war in Gaza, as well as allegations they had discriminated against students via diversity-related policies and programs. Neither Brown nor Columbia in their agreements admitted any wrongdoing — something Harvard has indicated in court fights with the federal government it is also unwilling to do. Advertisement The measures the schools adopted to get the government off their backs differ wildly. Both Columbia and Brown are paying millions to resolve their disputes Columbia agreed to pay about $200 million to the US Treasury Department over the next three years, as well as another $21 million to address alleged civil rights violations of its Jewish employees. Congress will then have the power to appropriate those funds — though it's unclear what they will be used for. In exchange, Columbia will receive many of the research grants the government had previously canceled as early as March, and resolve violations of the law alleged by the federal government. The administration had frozen 'the majority' of the school's $1.3 billion in federal funding, Columbia's president said. Advertisement Brown, meanwhile, pledged to give $50 million to state workforce development organizations in Rhode Island that are 'operating in compliance with anti-discrimination laws' over the next 10 years, avoiding making a direct payment to the Trump administration. In exchange, the federal government would restore Brown's funding — the government had put The schools agreed to other changes Columbia agreed to implement an outside monitor to oversee whether it was complying with the changes it had promised the government, such as to reform disciplinary measures for student protesters and remove diversity-related policies. Brown said it would not perform gender-affirming surgeries on minors — which Brown's medical school has never done — or prescribe puberty blockers. It adopted the Trump administration's definitions of 'male' and 'female,' sparking outrage among current and former students who say that change harms transgender and nonbinary students who are excluded from those definitions. The two schools also took different approaches to addressing antisemitism: Columbia's measures included adopting a controversial definition of antisemitism and a review of its programs related to the Middle East. Brown, meanwhile, said it would commit resources to support programs related to Jewish students, as well as conduct a campus climate survey in 2025 that would include information about the climate for Jewish students on campus. Both schools also said they would share admissions data about applicants' standardized test scores and grade point averages, as well as demographic data such as their race. On Thursday, the administration made that a Advertisement Neither agreement, however, appeared to place any restrictions on what or how the school teaches, avoiding infringement on academic freedom many critics of the Trump administration had feared. The schools negotiated under different circumstances Many critics of Trump's war on higher education viewed Brown's agreement to invest in local education as more aligned with its mission as a university, rather than simply paying a fine for the government to use as it sees fit. Some have also voiced concerns the implementation of an outside monitor at Columbia could allow the federal government to infringe on its independence, despite the deal they had reached. The arrangements reflect differences in the amount of pressure the administration had applied to each school, down to the number of pages in the deal — Columbia's deal was 22 pages long, while Brown's was nine. Columbia had seen among the most high-profile protests against the war in Gaza and was the first institution to face government sanctions, beginning in March with the cancellation of more than $400 million in funding. The federal government has since found it in violation of civil rights law for allegedly acting with 'deliberate indifference' to harassment of Jewish students. The administration's investigation into Brown's alleged civil rights violations, however, was ongoing at the time the deal was struck. What the Trump deals could mean for Harvard The Trump administration has quickly touted each agreement as a victory. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon called the Columbia settlement a 'roadmap for elite universities' and President Trump declared on Truth Social 'woke is officially DEAD at Brown' after announcing that deal. Advertisement Still, some worry any agreement with the administration only opens the door to further coercion if the federal government finds something else it doesn't like at any of the schools it is dealing with. Trump and his allies have long seen Harvard, the nation's wealthiest university, as its best opportunity to influence higher education and have aimed to force an agreement by canceling more than $3 billion in funding, threatening international students' statuses, and levying a number of civil rights complaints against the school. In response, the school has put up the most forceful legal and public relations fight against the federal government, meaning any agreement it reaches could reverberate further than that of its peers. The government is 'getting whatever they can get so they can make the announcement — it's all about the noise, it's not about the substance in any way," said Jonathan Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations at the American Council on Education, which represents 1,600 universities. 'If they reach a settlement with Harvard, they will do just what they did in the other cases: Make a big, splashy, noisy thing about it and not even refer to the actual details of what they've done. ... It's just generating news cycles, that's all they care about.' Anjali Huynh can be reached at
