Legal Intelligence

Supreme Court Declines Trump Bid to Void Carroll Verdict

The Court's repeated refusals to hear Trump's appeal leave the $5 million judgment intact, extending a legal pattern that began with the original 2023 jury finding.

The Congressional Times · August 17, 2026

The United States Supreme Court declined for a second time in 2026 to take up President Donald Trump's petition to overturn a $5 million civil judgment entered against him in the E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse case, according to reporting by Axios published August 17, 2026. The Court offered no written explanation for the denial, which is standard practice when the justices decline certiorari. The $5 million figure was set by a Manhattan federal jury in May 2023 in Carroll v. Trump, Case No. 22-cv-10016 (S.D.N.Y.).

The jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in that first trial. A separate proceeding in January 2024 produced an $83.3 million defamation judgment against Trump, also in the Southern District of New York. Trump's legal team has continued to contest that second judgment, arguing in appellate filings that statements made during his time in office are protected by presidential immunity, according to Axios.

The Supreme Court had previously declined to hear Trump's challenge to the $5 million verdict earlier in 2026, making the August 17 denial the second such refusal this calendar year. Because the Court did not grant certiorari, the lower court judgment remains enforceable. The precise status of any payment or escrow arrangement related to the $5 million award is not confirmed in publicly available court dockets as of this publication date.

What remains unknown is whether Trump has satisfied, bonded, or otherwise resolved the $5 million judgment, and what the current appellate schedule is for the $83.3 million defamation case. The docket for Carroll v. Trump in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals would contain the most recent filings on the defamation judgment appeal. The Supreme Court's public docket at supremecourt.gov would reflect any future petition related to either judgment.

We Follow the Data, Not the Narrative

The Congressional Times exists because public records are public — and the analysis built from them should not be exclusive to those who can afford $60,000-a-year intelligence subscriptions.

Every story published in The Congressional Times is sourced to a verifiable public record: a court filing, a Senate lobbying disclosure, an FEC contribution record, a USASpending contract, or a verified news report. We state our sources inline. We show our math. When we are wrong, we say so publicly.

We do not editorialize in news coverage. We do not use loaded language. Both political parties are held to identical standards.

The Follow the Money investigations are the heart of this publication. Each begins with Gab-E Political Intelligence running against 10+ million government records before a single word of editorial is written.

How We Source, Verify, and Correct Our Work

Every factual claim in a Congressional Times story is checked against a primary source: a government filing, a court record, a direct quote, before publication. When a claim can't be verified or doesn't hold up as originally reported, we drop it or reframe it. We do not publish disputed claims as settled fact.

When we get it wrong: we correct the story directly, note the correction and date at the bottom of the piece, and update the record. We do not quietly edit and move on.

Bylines: stories with a named byline are written and fact-checked by that person. Stories without a byline are sourced from Gab-E Political Intelligence, our automated research platform, and are labeled as such.

Ownership: The Congressional Times is published by Gab-E Holdings LLC. Gab-E, our intelligence platform, powers our sourcing and research pipeline.

Corrections or concerns: support@gab-e.com