President Donald Trump is taking another battle to the Supreme Court.
In a filing on Monday, Trump’s attorneys asked the justices to review the civil lawsuit filed against him by a former magazine columnist who claimed Trump had raped her in a New York department store in the 1990s.
There’s no way to tell if the court will accept the case, but there’s no question that it should.
NEW: President Trump petitions the Supreme Court to overturn a $5 million civil judgment that found him liable for s*xually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll.
“There were no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation,” Trump’s lawyers wrote… pic.twitter.com/Mnn1vdIHEF
— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) November 11, 2025
Of all the fronts of lawfare launched by the left against now-President Donald Trump, the allegation by writer E. Jean Carroll was the most incredible.
Literally, the most incredible — as in, it simply could not be believed.
Americans were asked to accept the claim that this woman, who wrote an advice column for Elle magazine from 1993 to 2019, had been raped under grossly improbably circumstances by one of the most famous men in world (even in the 1990s, Trump was a household name), and that she had never said a public word about it before publishing a memoir more than two decades later.
Americans were asked to believe that this same woman could not even remember exactly when the supposed attack had actually happened.
Should SCOTUS clear Trump’s name completely and overturn the sexual abuse ruling against him?
And, perhaps most incredible of all, Americans were asked to believe that Trump had gotten a fair trial in New York from a judge who made a series of rulings that seriously hurt Trump’s case.
In any event, Carroll was awarded $5 million for her claims. Though the jury rejected her story that Trump had raped her, it did find Trump liable for sexually abusing her, as The Associated Press reported at the time.
Another jury awarded Carroll $83 million more after she sued Trump again over his reaction to the first verdict.
(Among other things, Trump had called her a “whack job.” Anyone who’s seen her in action, like in her trainwreck interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, would be hard-pressed to disagree.)
Trump has maintained throughout the process that he is innocent.
And if his name weren’t Trump, there wouldn’t be many people taking the story seriously.
Considering how flimsy Carroll’s story is, it’s a good chance even leftists don’t actually buy it. But they don’t have to.
All they have to do is pretend to believe it and they have an issue they can use to attack the president. Just like nobody who is both honest and sane could have actually believed the attacks against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his 2018 confirmation hearings.
Those accusations were brought by a woman who claimed that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her somewhere, on an occasion she couldn’t quite remember, at some point in 1982 — 36 years earlier.
Democrats desperate to keep Trump from appointing another conservative justice on the road to getting Roe v. Wade overturned fell all over themselves pretending it was perfectly sensible to crucify a decent man in public, based on uncorroborated hallucinations, to make a political point.
(The hysteria marked the final destruction of whatever was left of American journalism at that point.)
According to CNN, Trump’s appeal in the E. Jean Carroll case centers on decisions made by Judge Lewis Kaplan, including allowing the original jury to hear from two women who claimed Trump had assaulted them, and allowing Carroll’s attorneys to show jurors footage of Trump’s infamous “Access Hollywood” interview.
Trump’s appeal also emphasized how little there was to Carroll’s story other than, well, Carroll’s story.
“There were no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation,” Trump’s appeal stated, according to CNN.
“Instead, Carroll waited more than 20 years to falsely accuse Donald Trump, who she politically opposes, until after he became the 45th president, when she could maximize political injury to him and profit for herself.”
Trump’s pitch to the Supreme Court is a last-ditch effort.
In June, as The Hill reported at the time, the full 2nd Court of Appeals refused to review a decision last year by a panel of three 2nd Court judges that let the original verdict against Trump stand.
And while a high court review might seem unlikely, there were two judges on the 2nd Court of Appeals who wanted to re-hear the case, and weren’t shy about the reasons.
In their dissent of the June decision, Judges Steven Menashi and Michael Park, both appointed by Trump, declared the trial included a “series of indefensible evidentiary rulings,” according to The Hill.
“The result was a jury verdict based on impermissible character evidence and few reliable facts. No one can have any confidence that the jury would have returned the same verdict if the normal rules of evidence had been applied,” Menashi wrote.
“… if the normal rules of evidence had been applied ….”
Judges can’t tailor their decisions depending on their dislike of the defendants standing before them — and there’s an arguable case that this is exactly what Judge Kaplan did.
And he did it in a trial that, considering it was accusing Trump of the most vicious personal crime there is short of murder, might well have done more personal damage to Trump than anything else the left has accused him of.
Donald Trump is one of the most famous men in the world — a president, a billionaire, a reality television impresario, and a businessman who’s built resorts around the globe — but he’s also an American citizen who deserves to be treated fairly in a court of law.
And what can happen to him can happen to anyone.
There’s no way of knowing if the high court will take Trump’s case, but there’s no question that it should.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
