You’ve probably seen the headlines flashing across your phone for years now. It’s the story that wouldn't go away: a legendary advice columnist, a luxury department store dressing room from the mid-90s, and a former president of the United States. But honestly, trying to keep track of the E. Jean Carroll case feels like trying to map out a multi-season legal thriller where the episodes air out of order.
Basically, it boils down to this. In 2019, E. Jean Carroll—longtime writer for Elle magazine—went public with a claim that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in 1996. Trump didn't just deny it; he went on the offensive. He said he’d never met her. He said she wasn't his "type." He claimed she made the whole thing up to sell a book.
What followed was a legal avalanche.
The Two Trials That Changed Everything
Most people don't realize there were actually two separate big-money trials. They weren't just repeats of each other; they handled different "buckets" of legal trouble.
First, we had what lawyers call Carroll II. This trial happened in May 2023. This was the one where a jury finally sat down and looked at the evidence of what happened in that dressing room. Because of a specific New York law called the Adult Survivors Act, Carroll was able to sue for the assault even though the statute of limitations had technically expired decades ago.
The jury's verdict? They found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation (based on a 2022 Truth Social post). They didn't find that "rape" was proven under the very narrow, technical definition in New York penal law, but Judge Lewis Kaplan later clarified that what the jury found—forcible digital penetration—is what most people commonly understand as rape anyway. They awarded her $5 million.
Then came the big one.
The $83.3 Million Defamation Bomb
This second trial (actually stemming from her first lawsuit, Carroll I) took place in January 2024. This wasn't about whether the assault happened—that was already "settled" by the first jury. This trial was strictly about how much Trump owed for the things he said while he was president in 2019.
The jury was fast. They spent less than three hours deliberating before dropping an $83.3 million judgment.
💡 You might also like: Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans: What Really Happened
- $18.3 million was for compensatory damages (to repair her reputation).
- $65 million was punitive damages (basically a massive "stop doing this" fine).
Why the Appeals Keep Failing
Trump’s team didn’t just take this lying down. They fought it all the way up. His lawyers argued everything from "presidential immunity" to the idea that the damages were way too high.
But here’s the thing. In late 2024 and throughout 2025, the appellate courts have been remarkably consistent. On September 8, 2025, a federal appeals court upheld that massive $83.3 million judgment. They called the award "fair and reasonable" given the "unique and egregious facts" of the case. They noted that Carroll was subjected to a "multitude of death threats" because of Trump's comments.
Honestly, the "presidential immunity" argument didn't hold much water with the judges either. They ruled that he had basically waived that right by not bringing it up soon enough in the legal process.
The Human Cost Behind the Legal jargon
It’s easy to get lost in the numbers, but Carroll’s testimony was pretty raw. She talked about losing her career at Elle. She talked about the fear that came from having a president target you on social media. She even started carrying a gun and bought a dog for protection.
Trump, for his part, stayed on brand. Even during the trials, he was posting on Truth Social. His defense was basically that he was just defending his honor and the presidency. But the courts saw it differently. They saw a pattern of "reprehensibility" that warranted a record-breaking fine.
What Most People Get Wrong
One big misconception is that this was a "criminal" trial. It wasn't. Nobody was going to jail. This was a civil trial, which is why the outcome was a dollar amount rather than a prison sentence.
Another thing? People often think the jury "cleared" him of rape. Technically, they didn't find enough evidence for the legal definition of rape in NY at the time, but they absolutely found him liable for a violent sexual assault. Judge Kaplan was very firm on this: the labels don't change the reality of the jury's findings.
Actionable Insights: What This Means for You
While most of us aren't suing former presidents, the E. Jean Carroll case set some massive precedents for how we think about defamation and sexual assault in the modern era.
- Understand "Look-Back" Windows: The Adult Survivors Act in New York showed that laws can change to allow survivors of old assaults to seek justice. If you or someone you know is in a similar spot, it’s worth checking if your state has passed similar legislation.
- Defamation is Expensive: In the age of social media, "defending yourself" can quickly turn into "maliciously attacking" someone. The $65 million punitive award is a giant warning sign that the court system won't tolerate using a massive platform to crush a private citizen's reputation.
- Appeals Aren't Magic: Just because someone says they are "going to appeal" doesn't mean the verdict is going away. As we saw here, appellate courts are very hesitant to overturn a jury's decision unless there's a massive legal error.
- E-E-A-T matters in Law: If you're following this, look for sources like Justia or Law360 rather than just social media snippets. The nuances of "compensatory" vs "punitive" damages make a huge difference in how the case actually ends.
As of early 2026, the legal path for the E. Jean Carroll case is largely at its end. While Trump has tried to push it toward the Supreme Court, the lower courts have kept the door firmly shut, upholding the idea that even a president has to pay up when a jury finds them liable for harm.
To stay updated on the final payment status or any last-minute Supreme Court filings, you can monitor the Southern District of New York (SDNY) court dockets or reputable legal news aggregators.