Appeals Court Denies Trump’s Attempt To Overturn E. Jean Carroll Ruling

A federal appeals court on Friday turned away an attempt by President Donald Trump to have a lower court’s ruling in his $5 million sexual abuse case involving former Elle columnist E. Jean Carroll overturned.

The decision, first reported on the X platform by Politico’s Kyle Cheney, stemmed from a divided Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in which all 11 judges were involved en banc. The ruling left intact a three-judge decision on Dec. 30 to enforce the jury award.

Carroll, now 81, alleged that Trump assaulted her in a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan around 1996, and later defamed her in an October 2022 Truth Social post by calling her accusation a hoax.

In May 2023, a jury found that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll and defamed her by making false statements. However, the jury did not conclude that Trump had raped her, as she originally claimed.

In requesting reconsideration, Trump argued that the trial judge made a mistake by allowing jurors to view the 2005 Access Hollywood video, in which he boasted about his sexual behavior, along with what he described as a “pile-on” of prejudicial evidence involving allegations from two other women.

“Two of the Trump appointees, Judges Steven Menashi and Michael Park, on the bench dissent from the en banc decision, saying the judge shouldn’t have admitted ‘propensity’ evidence like the Access Hollywood tape,” Cheney reported on X.

One accuser, businesswoman Jessica Leeds, claimed Trump groped her on a plane in the late 1970s. The other, former People magazine writer Natasha Stoynoff, alleged he forcibly kissed her at his Mar-a-Lago estate in 2005. Trump has denied both allegations.

Trump, who turns 79 on Saturday, is also appealing an $83.3 million jury verdict issued in January 2024, which found he defamed Carroll and harmed her reputation in June 2019 when he first denied her allegation about the incident at Bergdorf Goodman.

In that appeal, Trump contends that the U.S. Supreme Court’s July decision granting him broad criminal immunity also shields him from civil liability in Carroll’s case.

In his 2019 and 2022 statements denying Carroll’s accusations, Trump claimed she was “not my type” and alleged she fabricated the story to promote her memoir.

Trump could also face a third lawsuit from Carroll over a post he made to his Truth Social account during the Memorial Day observance a year ago.

“Happy Memorial Day to All, including the Human Scum that is working so hard to destroy our Once Great Country, & to the Radical Left, Trump Hating Federal Judge in New York that presided over, get this, TWO separate trials, that awarded a woman, who I never met before (a quick handshake at a celebrity event, 25 years ago, doesn’t count!), 91 MILLION DOLLARS for ‘DEFAMATION,’” Trump wrote.

“She didn’t know when the so-called event took place – sometime in the 1990’s – never filed a police report, didn’t have to produce the ‘dress’ that she threatened me with (it showed negative!), & sung my praises in the first half of her CNN Interview with Alison Cooper, but changed her tune in the second half – Gee, I wonder why (UNDER APPEAL!)? The Rape charge was dropped by a jury! Or Arthur Engoron, the N.Y. State Wacko Judge who fined me almost 500 Million Dollars (UNDER APPEAL) for DOING NOTHING WRONG, used a Statute that has never been used before, gave me NO JURY, Mar-a-Lago at $18,000,000 – Now for Merchan!” he added.

Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, confirmed to Newsweek that her client was considering yet another lawsuit.

“We have said several times since the last jury verdict in January that all options were on the table. And that remains true today. All options are on the table,” Kaplan said in a statement at the time.

JUDICIAL TAKEDOWN: JUDGE FORCES T.R.U.M.P TO CHANGE KENNEDY CENTER NAME BACK TO ORIGINAL?!

Judge Steps In as Trump’s Kennedy Center Rename Triggers Legal Revolt and Artist Boycotts

A sweeping political and cultural backlash has erupted after Donald Trump moved to attach his name to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, igniting a legal firestorm and prompting urgent questions about presidential authority, historical preservation, and the rule of law. Legal experts say the move may directly conflict with federal statutes governing the memorial.

The controversy intensified after the Kennedy Center’s board—reshaped during Trump’s tenure—approved a name alteration despite a longstanding law requiring explicit congressional authorization for any change. Within days, large metal lettering bearing Trump’s name appeared on the building, a move critics described as unprecedented and deliberately provocative given the Center’s status as a memorial to an assassinated president.

Legal scholars and former government officials quickly pushed back. Norm Eisen, now leading the Democracy Defenders Fund, argued that the action fits a broader pattern of defying both norms and statutes. He noted that courts have repeatedly intervened to halt similar actions, citing hundreds of lawsuits that successfully constrained executive overreach in recent years.

The fallout was immediate and visible. Protests erupted outside the Kennedy Center, while prominent artists began canceling scheduled performances. Representatives for musicians slated to appear at the venue confirmed withdrawals, citing concerns about politicization and respect for the institution’s historical mission. Cultural leaders warned that the controversy could permanently damage the Center’s reputation as a neutral space for artistic excellence.

Members of Congress also entered the fray. Lawmakers emphasized that only Congress—not the White House, and not a board vote—has the authority to rename the Kennedy Center. Several representatives called the move a “sacrilege” and an insult to President John F. Kennedy’s legacy, stressing that the original name was established by statute and signed into law after Kennedy’s assassination.

Beyond the naming dispute, analysts framed the episode as part of a larger pattern. Critics pointed to simultaneous controversies involving judicial defiance, public health policy, and executive unilateralism, arguing that the Kennedy Center episode symbolizes a growing “imperial presidency” operating with few internal checks.

May you like

My husband let his mother throw my toddler’s diapers into trash bags on...

Everyone thought he was stealing a Prada bag, but the real reason he bro...

The rookie called it a family argument, but the three-year-old on the po...

Political strategists believe the optics could carry electoral consequences. While the renaming has dominated Washington media, polls suggest voters are increasingly concerned about cost-of-living issues, raising questions about why symbolic battles are taking precedence. Opponents argue the issue provides Democrats with a powerful populist narrative: Americans do not have kings, and public institutions are not personal branding tools.

As legal challenges advance and pressure mounts, the future of the Kennedy Center’s name remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the attempted rebranding has transformed a cultural landmark into a national flashpoint—one that intertwines law, history, and power. Whether the lettering remains or is removed, the episode has already reignited a fundamental debate about who controls America’s public symbols, and how far presidential authority can truly extend.