The E. Jean Carroll Verdict: $83.3 Million and Where It Now Stands
Two cases, two verdicts, and one of the largest defamation judgments in American history — now awaiting a decision on whether the Supreme Court will even hear it. Here is the status as of 24 August 2026, and what the case shows about how defamation law actually works.
Revisado Editorialmente — Contenido revisado en cuanto a exactitud utilizando investigación legal publicada, datos gubernamentales y registros judiciales verificados. Vea nuestra metodología
Reviewed by Leonard Goldberg, Editor · Last updated
Two Separate Cases — Which Is Which
The confusion is understandable, because there were two trials. Carroll II (tried first, in May 2023) produced a $5 million verdict: a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation over statements made in 2022. Carroll I (tried in January 2024) concerned Trump's 2019 statements denying Carroll's account while he was in office, and produced the $83.3 million award — the great majority of it punitive damages, which is what pushed the figure into headline territory. The 2019 case took longer to reach trial because of years of litigation over whether a sitting president could be sued for statements made in office.
Case Details
Both verdicts have moved through appeal. In the $5 million case, the Supreme Court declined to hear Trump's appeal on 29 June 2026, which ends that matter. In the $83.3 million case, the Second Circuit upheld the judgment, and the full appeals court declined to rehear it in April 2026. On 28 July 2026, Trump's lawyers filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to take the case, arguing principally that his 2019 statements were made as part of a president's interactions with the press and public and therefore constitute an “official act” shielded by the presidential immunity recognised in the Court's 2024 decision.
Status as of 24 August 2026
Why This Case Is Legally Significant
Three reasons it is studied beyond its celebrity. First, the punitive damages ratio: with the great bulk of the $83.3 million awarded as punishment rather than compensation, the case tests how far a jury may go in punishing a wealthy defendant for reputational harm. Second, the immunity question — whether statements a president makes to the press about a private accusation are “official acts” — would, if taken up, extend a doctrine developed for criminal prosecution into civil defamation. Third, it demonstrates the public-figure standard in reverse: Carroll had to prove actual malice, and did, which is rare and instructive about what that burden actually requires in practice.
What This Does — and Does Not — Mean for Ordinary Cases
How the Case Reached Today
- 1
2019 — the statements at issue
Trump, then in office, publicly denies Carroll's account. These statements later form the basis of the case that produces the $83.3 million verdict.
- 2
May 2023 — the $5 million verdict
In the case tried first, a jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse and for defamation over 2022 statements, awarding $5 million.
- 3
January 2024 — the $83.3 million verdict
A jury awards Carroll $83.3 million over the 2019 statements, the great majority as punitive damages.
- 4
April 2026 — rehearing denied
After the Second Circuit upholds the judgment, the full appeals court declines to rehear the case.
- 5
29 June 2026 — Supreme Court declines the $5M appeal
The Court rejects Trump's bid to appeal the $5 million verdict, making that judgment final.
- 6
28 July 2026 — petition on the $83.3M judgment
Trump's lawyers ask the Supreme Court to overturn the $83.3 million judgment on presidential-immunity grounds. As of 24 August 2026, no decision on whether the Court will hear it.
Three Things People Get Wrong About This Case
A case this widely covered accumulates misconceptions quickly.
Treating the two verdicts as one
The $5 million and $83.3 million awards come from separate trials about statements made in different years. Their appellate paths have diverged: the smaller judgment is final; the larger is pending at the Supreme Court.
“He's already paid”
A judgment on appeal is typically secured by a bond rather than paid over, and money does not move to the plaintiff until the appeals conclude. An upheld verdict is not a completed payment.
Reading it as a benchmark for your own claim
Punitive damages against a defendant with means are not a guide to ordinary defamation value. Most claims turn on provable economic loss, and most defendants could not satisfy a large award in any event.
Common Questions
What is the status right now?
As of 24 August 2026 the $83.3 million judgment stands. Trump petitioned the Supreme Court on 28 July 2026 to overturn it; the Court has not announced whether it will hear the case. The separate $5 million judgment became final when the Court declined that appeal on 29 June 2026.
Why are there two different amounts?
Two trials over statements from different years. The May 2023 trial concerned 2022 statements and produced $5 million alongside a finding of sexual abuse. The January 2024 trial concerned 2019 statements made while Trump was in office and produced $83.3 million, mostly punitive damages.
What is the immunity argument?
That the 2019 statements were made in the course of a president's communication with the press and public and so amount to “official acts” protected under the immunity the Supreme Court recognised in 2024. Extending that doctrine from criminal prosecution to civil defamation would be a significant step, which is part of why the petition draws attention.
Will the Supreme Court take the case?
Unknown, and most petitions are denied — the Court grants review in only a small share of cases. A denial would leave the Second Circuit's judgment in place and end the matter; a grant would mean briefing and argument extending well into the following term.
How could a defamation verdict be that large?
Because most of it is punitive rather than compensatory. Punitive damages are meant to punish and deter, and they scale with the defendant's means and the conduct's egregiousness — which is why they appear in headline verdicts and almost never in ordinary claims.
What does “actual malice” mean here?
Because Carroll is a public figure, she had to prove Trump knew his statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for their truth — the standard from New York Times v. Sullivan. It is a demanding burden, which is why public-figure defamation claims usually fail, and why this one is legally notable.
How do I verify this page?
Through the Second Circuit's opinion, the Supreme Court's docket for the pending petition, and contemporaneous reporting from established outlets. Everything here reflects what we could confirm as of 24 August 2026; a live docket is authoritative where a summary is not.
Separate from this case: were you injured in the last 2 years?
Class-action payouts are fixed amounts through an administrator. A personal injury claim is a different case — and often worth far more. Free estimate, no obligation.