Now that Donald Trump has filed his final reply brief to the Supreme Court, the justices have set a date to consider whether to grant review of his petition seeking to reverse one of the civil verdicts won by E. Jean Carroll, the writer he was found liable of sexually abusing and defaming.
The justices distributed the petition for their Feb. 20 private conference, where the Carroll case will be among the pending petitions hoping to get the court’s attention. We could learn in the days or weeks after whether the court wants to hear the case that Trump has been losing in the lower courts. It takes four justices to grant review.
Though the context is obviously unusual in that it involves a sitting president’s personal appeal over his adjudicated sexual abuse (which he has denied), the litigation is relatively typical when it comes to seeking high court review. It features the petitioning party (Trump) arguing that his appeal raises important issues that have divided the lower courts and therefore need a nationwide resolution, while the opposing party (Carroll) argues that there’s no good reason for the justices to get involved.
The legal issues involve evidence that Carroll used to win a $5 million verdict against Trump in 2023. The president argues that he was unfairly prejudiced by the admission at trial of, for example, the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, in which he bragged about grabbing women by their genitals. He argues that the approval of the tape’s admission by the New York-based federal appeals court conflicts with the way other federal circuits handle evidentiary issues. It’s the sort of legal argument that any party would make in attempting to convince the justices to grant review — that is, it involves a “circuit split” meriting the high court’s resolution and has legal significance beyond this one case.
There’s also the unique atmospheric element, which the president’s lawyers led with in his final reply brief, filed Wednesday. They began the latest filing: “It is deeply damaging to the fabric of our Republic for President Trump, in the midst of a historic presidency, to have to take his focus away from his singular and unique duties as Chief Executive to continue fighting against decades-old, false allegations and the myriad wrongs throughout this baseless case. This mistreatment of a President cannot be allowed to stand.”
While it’s clear that he wants special treatment for being president, it’s a little odd to complain, in effect, about being distracted by his own appeal. Of course he’d be happier if the verdict went away (as would any litigant), but he’s the one asking the court to take up an appeal that would naturally capture his attention until it’s resolved. Denying review would eliminate any such distraction, though it would end the case in a way he wouldn’t like. That he won the White House again in 2024 shouldn’t put him in a better (or worse) position in this litigation.
And whatever the court does with this petition, it’s separate from Trump’s other appeal of the related $83.3 million defamation award that Carroll won. That one could land before the justices as well. So, on the Carroll docket alone, there’s plenty to warrant the president’s focus. Whether the justices deem the matter worthy of theirs remains to be determined.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
