A split federal appeals court leaves Trump with one last shot at the Supreme Court as the #MeToo movement and public trust in the judiciary hang in the balance.
A federal appeals court in New York City has refused to reconsider Donald Trump’s $5 million loss to E. Jean Carroll—a ruling that affirms his liability for sexual assault and defamation. The decision, handed down by a divided panel, marks not only a legal defeat for the former president but also intensifies debates about accountability in high-profile sexual misconduct cases. Trump’s next move is his petition to the Supreme Court, but with the odds stacked against him, the ruling has broader implications for the judiciary, the #MeToo movement, and the political landscape. Read on to explore the case details, the court’s reasoning, and what this means for America’s fight for justice.
The Case at a Glance
Background and Allegations
E. Jean Carroll, a former Elle columnist known for her forthright style, accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in the mid-1990s at a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room. Carroll’s claim, which emerged into the national spotlight in June 2019 via excerpts from her memoir, sharply contrasted with Trump’s dismissive denial—he infamously remarked, “She’s not my type,” dismissing the allegation as a hoax designed to sell books.
Litigation Timeline and Key Evidence
The legal battle has spanned several years and cases:
- In November 2019, Carroll initiated her first defamation lawsuit after Trump’s public denials.
- Later that year, she filed a second suit under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, which allowed her to bypass the statute of limitations on sexual assault claims.
- The trial, held in April–May 2023, saw riveting testimony and evidence that included the notorious 2005 Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump boasted about groping women, along with corroborative accounts from other women—most notably Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff.
- A compelling 1987 photograph of Carroll and Trump together also emerged to challenge Trump’s claim that they had never met.
- In May 2023, the jury rendered a verdict holding Trump liable for both sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll$5 million in damages.
The Appeals Court Decision
What the Court Ruled
On December 30, 2024, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit solidified the jury’s verdict by refusing an en banc hearing. Trump’s appeal hinged on two main arguments: the improper admission of the Access Hollywood tape and testimony from other accusers. However, the court maintained that these pieces of evidence were vital in establishing a pattern of behavior and did not amount to reversible error. The full court later denied Trump’s rehearing request in an 8‑2 vote, leaving him with only the option to petition the Supreme Court.
A Closer Look at the Dissent
Two judges, both Trump appointees, dissented. Judge Steven Menashi argued, “The result was a jury verdict based on impermissible character evidence and few reliable facts. No one can have any confidence that the jury would have returned the same verdict if the normal rules of evidence had been applied.” Their dissent underscores concerns over the trial’s fairness and the use of evidence that may have prejudiced the jury against Trump.
Media Perspectives: Left, Center, and Right
Left-Leaning Coverage
Outlets with a left-leaning stance, such as ABC News, emphasized accountability and Carroll’s vindication. The coverage highlighted the court’s firm rejection of Trump’s legal maneuvers. Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, stated, “E. Jean Carroll is very pleased with today’s decision. Although President Trump continues to try every possible maneuver to challenge the findings of two separate juries, those efforts have failed.” The narrative is one of triumph for survivors and a win for justice.
Center-Leaning Coverage
Center-leaning sources like Reuters reported the decision with objective clarity. Their coverage focused on the procedural aspects—explaining that the denial of an en banc hearing is common when no significant legal error is apparent. A Reuters article noted, “The appellate court denial of an en banc hearing came without explanation, as is common.” This approach delivers the facts without overt judgment.
Right-Leaning Coverage
Right-leaning media, including the Washington Examiner, framed the decision as part of what they describe as politically motivated legal persecution. They underscored the dissenting opinions and questioned the fairness of introducing evidence such as the Access Hollywood tape. Right-wing narratives often point to Judge Menashi’s remarks, arguing that the ruling rests on “impermissible character evidence” that could taint the trial’s integrity.
Broader Impact on Trump, #MeToo, and Public Trust
Trump’s Legal and Political Landscape
The appeals court decision is a critical setback for Trump. Beyond the immediate financial penalty, the verdict adds to his mounting legal challenges. While his base may rally around him by viewing these cases as politically driven, the legal momentum could weaken his future prospects—both in the courtroom and at the ballot box. With an $83.3 million judgment hanging over him in a separate defamation case, Trump’s legal woes are far from over.
Legal experts suggest that this ruling further complicates Trump’s narrative of being unfairly targeted by the justice system—a narrative that has long resonated with his supporters. Yet, for many, it signals that even powerful figures are not beyond accountability.
The #MeToo Movement and Accountability
For the #MeToo movement, the ruling represents an important milestone. It affirms that patterns of behavior—supported by multiple forms of evidence—can be pivotal in civil cases involving sexual misconduct. Since the movement’s emergence, courts have increasingly been willing to revisit the credibility of survivors’ accounts, despite pushback from critics who argue that such evidence can sometimes be overextended.
Statistically, since the rise of #MeToo, district courts have leaned more favorably toward claimants in sexual assault cases. However, appellate courts remain cautious, balancing legal precedent against the evolving social context. This decision thus becomes a bellwether for how future cases, especially those involving high-profile figures, might be adjudicated.
Public Trust in the Judiciary
High-profile cases like this have a profound impact on public confidence in the judicial system. A 2024 Pew Research survey found that trust in the judiciary has eroded—from 62% in 2016 to just 48% in 2024. The widely publicized legal battles involving Trump further polarize public opinion, with partisan divides shaping perceptions of fairness and legitimacy.
Legal analyst Jordan Sekulow emphasizes that “courts must balance their constitutional role with public expectations to maintain the integrity of the justice system.” In today’s politically charged landscape, every ruling in a high-stakes case such as Carroll’s plays a role in either restoring or further undermining public trust.
What’s Next?
Trump’s next and final legal recourse is a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court is selective, and without a strong question of federal law or a clear constitutional issue, the likelihood of hearing the case remains slim. Meanwhile, the legal and political battles continue to unfold on multiple fronts, leaving both Trump and his critics to brace for what comes next.
Call to Action
This appeals court decision is more than a legal setback for Donald Trump—it is a potent symbol of accountability. By upholding the $5 million damage award to E. Jean Carroll, the court has sent a clear message: no one is immune from the consequences of their actions, regardless of power or position. This ruling not only bolsters the #MeToo movement but also serves as a critical reminder of the need for an impartial and robust judicial system.
Stay informed and join the call for justice by sharing this story. Support organizations that stand up for survivors’ rights and advocate for a fair legal process for all. The conversation about power, accountability, and truth is far from over—and your voice matters.
