The Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider a petition from President Trump in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case, marking only the second redistribution of a rehearing request since 2018.
A federal jury in 2023 found Trump liable in the civil case and awarded Carroll substantial damages. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict in 2024, but the Supreme Court’s decision to take another look at the matter has revived questions about the case’s legal foundation.
The Funding Question
Carroll’s legal team received approximately $7 million in funding from a nonprofit called American Future Republic, connected to LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, a major Democratic donor. The source of this funding remained undisclosed until weeks before the initial trial.
The Department of Justice is investigating whether Carroll committed perjury during a 2022 deposition when she testified that no one else was funding her legal fees. A federal appeals court previously ruled that Carroll had “plausibly forgotten” the identity of her financial backers.
The Core Legal Arguments
Trump’s Supreme Court petition centers on whether the jury should have heard testimony from other accusers making decades-old allegations and a 2005 recording. Trump’s legal team argues this evidence was inadmissible under the rules governing pattern evidence in trials.
Carroll’s own legal team acknowledged the case “might look different” without the additional evidence but maintained her testimony alone was sufficient to establish liability. The central question before the Court involves whether unrelated allegations should be admissible to prove a specific claim.
Original Allegations and Evidence
Carroll alleges Trump assaulted her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in 1995 or 1996. No police report, contemporaneous complaint beyond two friends, or surviving security footage exists from that time period.
A 1987 photograph showing both Trump and Carroll at an NBC charity event became a key piece of evidence during trial. Trump testified he shook thousands of hands at such events and could not recall meeting Carroll specifically.
What Comes Next
The Supreme Court’s reconsideration of the case occurs as the DOJ perjury investigation continues separately. Legal experts expect the Court’s decision on evidentiary standards could have broader implications beyond this specific dispute.
This story has been updated. CNN’s legal team contributed to this report.
