Legal Arguments Center on Evidentiary Rulings

Former United States President Donald J. Trump has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to nullify a jury's verdict from a civil trial that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll. The appeal, filed on Monday, November 10, 2025, targets the $5 million judgment awarded to Carroll in May 2023. Trump's legal team argues that the trial was fundamentally flawed due to what they term "indefensible evidentiary rulings" by the presiding judge, Lewis A. Kaplan. They contend these rulings improperly allowed "highly inflammatory propensity evidence" to be presented to the jury, which unfairly prejudiced the case against him.

The core of the appeal focuses on the admission of testimony from two other women, Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff, who alleged they were also sexually assaulted by Trump in separate incidents years apart. Additionally, Trump's lawyers are challenging the inclusion of the widely publicized 2005 "Access Hollywood" tape, in which Trump made lewd comments about groping women. His attorneys assert that this evidence was irrelevant and served only to portray him as a person of bad character, which is typically inadmissible in court. They argue that the verdict was "propped up" by this evidence and that the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erred by upholding the trial court's decisions, creating a conflict with how other federal appeals courts apply evidence rules.

A Protracted Legal Battle

The case stems from an encounter in the spring of 1996 at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan. E. Jean Carroll, a former advice columnist, testified that a chance meeting with Trump turned into a violent sexual assault in a dressing room. Trump has consistently and vehemently denied the allegation, labeling it a "politically motivated hoax." His lawyers emphasize the lack of physical or DNA evidence, eyewitnesses, or a police report from the time of the alleged incident.

This legal saga involves two separate but related lawsuits. The first trial in May 2023, which is the subject of the current Supreme Court appeal, found Trump liable for sexual abuse and for defaming Carroll with statements he made in October 2022. The jury awarded Carroll $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. A second trial, which concluded in January 2024, focused on defamatory statements Trump made in 2019 while he was president. In that case, a separate jury, instructed to accept the findings of the first jury, awarded Carroll an additional $83.3 million in damages. An appeals court upheld this larger award in September 2025.

Global Significance and Implications

While this case has no direct connection to Kenya or the East Africa region, its outcome is being closely watched globally. The legal proceedings touch upon universal themes of power, accountability, and gender-based violence. For international observers, the case serves as a significant test of whether a high-profile political figure can be held accountable for actions committed before and during their time in office. Legal analysts worldwide are examining the application of U.S. evidentiary rules, particularly those concerning prior-act evidence in sexual assault cases, and the arguments around presidential immunity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has previously rejected Trump's claims of presidential immunity in this civil matter, a ruling his legal team has also contested. The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will hear the appeal. The resolution of this case will likely set a precedent with far-reaching implications for civil litigation against public figures accused of misconduct, resonating with ongoing global conversations about justice and accountability for those in power.