$5M Verdict: Donald Trump Tells Supreme Court Carroll's Claims Are 'Implausible'

It is the latest, high-stakes battle in a legal war that has already cost a former US President $5 million and resulted in a stunning judicial defeat. Donald Trump is now attempting to persuade the US Supreme Court to completely dismantle the unanimous jury verdict awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll.

In a fiery new petition filed on Monday, Trump's legal team launched a direct assault on the core of Carroll's claims, labelling the allegations of sexual assault and subsequent injury as 'implausible'.

The move marks the furthest and most serious effort yet by the former president to wipe away the May 2025 finding that he was liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The filing arrives amidst the ongoing legal chaos surrounding Trump, demanding that the highest court in the land review the highly publicised case, even as he faces a separate, yet related, defamation lawsuit from Carroll.

The petition does not simply ask for a reduction in damages; it argues that the entire legal proceeding was so fundamentally flawed that the initial finding of liability must be overturned, claiming the $5 million judgment is both 'draconian' and 'excessive'.

The core of the legal manoeuvre hinges on the premise that the trial court made a critical error by preventing the jury from properly considering Carroll's conduct. According to the petition, Carroll's allegation of injury is 'implausible' because she failed to go to the police or tell anyone about the alleged incident for 20 years.

Trump's lawyers contend that this delay in reporting—a fact that was central to his defence—was wrongly sidelined by the presiding judge, thereby skewing the trial's outcome and depriving the former President of a fair legal defence.

The verdict itself was a significant blow to Trump, as the jury found him liable for both battery (for sexual abuse) and defamation (for comments he made after leaving the presidency). The $5 million total judgment was carefully divided: $2 million was awarded for the battery claim as compensatory damages, and $3 million was allocated for defamation in a combination of compensatory and punitive damages. This financial breakdown forms a key part of the defence team's argument that the total figure is unfairly inflated.

The 'Implausible' Allegation at the Heart of the Trump Carroll $5M Verdict

The petition outlines two main constitutional challenges that Trump's lawyers believe justify the Supreme Court's intervention. Firstly, they contend that the trial court's exclusion of evidence regarding the plaintiff's two-decade delay in reporting the alleged assault violated Trump's Fifth Amendment rights, which guarantee due process. The lawyers stressed that the jury should have been allowed to hear and weigh this 'implausible' element of the story in full.

Secondly, the filing challenges the sheer size of the financial award. The legal team has consistently argued that the $5 million total is 'excessive', particularly given the nature of the claim, which was only possible because New York State passed the Adult Survivors Act in 2022. This law temporarily allowed victims to sue over old sexual abuse claims. This procedural element, they argue, coupled with the magnitude of the award, raises serious constitutional questions about the fairness of the overall judgment in the Trump Carroll $5M Verdict.

A Colossal Damage Award: Analysing the Trump Carroll $5M Verdict

The former President continues to deny Carroll's allegations entirely, maintaining his stance that the claims are politically motivated and false. However, the legal reality is that the initial verdict has already had cascading effects on his subsequent legal challenges. In the second defamation case, concerning remarks made by Trump calling Carroll a 'whack job' and other highly derogatory terms, a judge has already ruled that Trump's comments were defamatory as a matter of law because the first jury had already established that he sexually abused her and defamed her.

Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, remained defiant following the latest legal filing. She dismissed Trump's petition as 'groundless' and expressed confidence that the unanimous jury verdict will stand. Legal experts suggest the Supreme Court is not obligated to hear the case, and historically, it takes on only a small fraction of the petitions it receives.

Nevertheless, the filing guarantees that the contentious legal saga—and the underlying issues of sexual abuse liability and political rhetoric—will remain a highly publicised issue in the coming months, regardless of the Court's ultimate decision. This ongoing litigation continues to be a defining feature of the former President's post-White House political and legal landscape.