The Supreme Court will meet behind closed doors on Feb. 20 to consider President Trump’s petition asking the justices to overturn a 2023 federal jury verdict out of New York that ordered him to pay $5 million to writer E. Jean Carroll for an alleged mid-1990s sexual assault and for defaming her when he denied the claim during his first presidency.
The case lands at the court amid intense public attention and fierce disagreement over how it was handled at trial. Trump is asking the justices to throw out the verdict, arguing the proceedings were legally flawed and unfair. Carroll and her lawyers insist the judgment was properly reached and should stand.
The court will first decide whether to take the case at all, a high bar since justices accept only about 1 to 2 percent of petitions. That acceptance threshold means Feb. 20 is a gatekeeping moment, not necessarily a final ruling on the merits. Observers on both sides are watching closely because the decision to review would itself shape the legal fight.
Central to the appeal are disputes over evidence admitted at trial. Trump’s team argues the jury heard improper material, notably testimony from other women and the “Access Hollywood” tape, which they say violated federal guidelines and prejudiced the outcome. The defense frames this as a procedural failure that allowed emotion and spectacle to seep into what should have been a controlled evaluation of facts.
Trump’s lawyers also say the former president was hamstrung at trial by limits on cross-examination, including restrictions that prevented probing Carroll about funding for her legal expenses from a prominent Democratic donor. They contend those boundaries kept jurors from seeing potential motivations and created an incomplete record. From their perspective, the result reads less like justice and more like a one-sided theater.
Carroll’s legal team pushes back that the appeal lacks a real legal hook for Supreme Court review, pointing out there’s no clear split among lower courts that would require intervention from the high court. Their position is straightforward: the trial record supports the verdict and the judgment should remain intact. They portray the petition as an attempt to relitigate settled facts rather than correct a legal error.
In its filings, the Trump side has not softened its critique, describing the case as politically charged and warning of broader harm. The closing brief asserts the situation is “deeply damaging to the fabric of our Republic.” The submission also calls the treatment a “mistreatment of a President,” language meant to underline claims of institutional bias and procedural overreach.
Beyond the immediate petition, the legal picture includes a separate verdict in Carroll’s favor worth $83.3 million on additional defamation claims, which is still being challenged in lower courts. That larger award adds a second layer to the dispute and raises questions about the financial and reputational consequences for anyone who faces serial litigation in politically fraught times. The related appeals remain active and unresolved.
The twin proceedings feed a narrative, particularly among conservatives, that the justice system is being used to settle political scores rather than to neutrally resolve disputes. Critics warn that stretching evidentiary rules and allowing inflammatory materials into the courtroom risks weaponizing trials against public figures. Supporters of the verdict argue the proceedings provided a necessary platform for a survivor to be heard.
At stake are more than dollars or one verdict: the justices’ action or inaction on Feb. 20 could influence how lower courts handle evidence and testimony in high-profile cases involving public figures. Accepting the petition might invite new review of where lines are drawn; declining it would leave the lower-court outcomes intact for now. The legal and political reverberations will unfold as the process moves forward.
