It started with a chance encounter at a Bergdorf Goodman in the mid-90s and ended with a former president of the United States owing nearly $90 million to a woman he claims he never even met. Honestly, if you haven’t been following the play-by-play, the legal saga between Donald Trump and E. Jean Carroll feels like a fever dream of modern litigation. It’s got everything: decades-old secrets, high-stakes defamation battles, and a brand-new New York law that basically blew the doors off the statute of limitations.
But here’s the thing. Most people still get the "why" and "how" of this case totally wrong. You’ve probably heard people arguing over whether the jury found him "guilty" of rape or why the second trial was so much more expensive than the first.
The reality is a lot more nuanced—and a lot more about money and reputation than most realize.
The 1996 Incident: What the Jury Actually Decided
Let's clear the air on the biggest misconception right out of the gate. In May 2023, a jury in Manhattan found Donald Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, but they didn't technically find him liable for "rape" under New York’s very specific legal definition at the time.
Now, don't let that distinction trip you up.
👉 See also: Who Burned Down Ed Gein’s House: The Unsolved Mystery of the Plainfield Fire
Basically, the New York penal code back then defined rape in a way that required proof of "forcible penetration by a penis." The jury found that while Carroll's account of the assault was credible, she hadn't proven that specific detail by a "preponderance of the evidence." Instead, they found that he had sexually abused her by forcibly touching her for his own sexual gratification.
Judge Lewis Kaplan later clarified this in a pretty blunt way. He noted that in common parlance, what the jury found—forcible digital penetration—is what most people would call rape. But in the courtroom, words have very specific borders.
The Adult Survivors Act: The "How"
Wait, how could she sue for something that happened in 1996? Normally, that’s way too late.
New York passed the Adult Survivors Act (ASA), which opened a one-year window for victims of sexual assault to file civil lawsuits even if the statute of limitations had long since expired. Carroll was one of the first to step through that door.
Why the $83.3 Million Verdict Was So Massive
If the first trial in 2023 ended with a $5 million judgment, why did the second trial in early 2024 balloon to **$83.3 million**?
It feels like a typo. It wasn't.
The second trial—often called "Carroll I" because it was actually based on the first lawsuit she filed in 2019—was strictly about defamation. Because the first jury had already decided the assault happened, Trump wasn't allowed to argue his innocence again. The only question for the second jury was: How much did his denials hurt her?
Breaking down the math:
- $18.3 million in compensatory damages: This was to fix the damage to her brand. Carroll was a legendary advice columnist for Elle. She argued that Trump's "she's not my type" and "it's a hoax" comments turned her from a respected writer into a political target.
- $65 million in punitive damages: This is the "punishment" money. The jury wanted to send a message. They felt that because Trump kept attacking her even during the trial, a small fine wouldn't stop him.
The Current State of Play in 2026
Fast forward to where we are now. It is January 2026, and the legal gears are still grinding.
Trump hasn't just sat back and written a check. He’s fought every inch of this. As of now, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly upheld these verdicts. In September 2025, a three-judge panel rejected his attempt to toss the $83.3 million award, calling his conduct toward Carroll "extraordinary and unprecedented."
They specifically pointed out that he used his platform as President (and later as a former president) to incite a "multitude of death threats" against her.
The Supreme Court Gambit
Right now, the ball is in the Supreme Court's court. Trump’s legal team has filed a petition asking the highest court in the land to review the cases. They're arguing that the trial judge, Lewis Kaplan, made errors with the rules of evidence and that the damages are "grossly excessive."
Carroll’s team just filed their response yesterday, January 16, 2026, urging the Supreme Court to stay out of it. They say the case is settled and that the appeals court already did its job.
What This Means for You (and the Law)
This isn't just a celebrity gossip story. It’s a massive legal precedent.
- Defamation is getting expensive. This case shows that if you have a massive audience and you use it to target a private citizen, the "compensatory" costs can be astronomical.
- The "Scope of Employment" debate. One of Trump's big arguments was that he couldn't be sued because he was "acting as President" when he made the 2019 comments. The courts didn't buy it. They ruled that attacking a woman over a decades-old personal allegation isn't part of a president's official duties.
- The Power of Outcry Witnesses. Carroll’s case was bolstered by two friends she told immediately after the 1996 incident. Their testimony proved that her story wasn't a "political hit job" invented in 2019.
What's Next?
If you're wondering when this actually ends, keep an eye on the Supreme Court's docket over the next few months. If they decline to hear the case, Trump will likely have to pay out the full amount, which is currently sitting in a court-controlled account (plus interest).
Actionable Next Steps:
✨ Don't miss: The Brian Thompson Shooting: What the Healthcare CEO Shot Video Actually Tells Us
- Verify the Source: If you see a headline saying Trump was "cleared of rape," remember the legal distinction versus the factual findings of the jury.
- Monitor the SCOTUS Docket: Check the Supreme Court's "Orders List" on Monday mornings. That's where we'll see if they decide to take up the appeal or let the $88 million total judgments stand.
- Review the Adult Survivors Act: If you or someone you know missed a window for justice, look into whether your state has passed similar "lookback" windows. They are becoming more common in the wake of this case.
The story of Trump and E. Jean Carroll is essentially a masterclass in how civil law handles reputation in the age of social media. It's loud, it's expensive, and it's far from over.