Donald Trump’s legal battles have once again taken center stage in America’s courts and political discourse, as the former president pushes the Supreme Court to overturn a multi-million dollar verdict that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll. This latest move is just one in a cascade of legal maneuvers Trump has launched in the wake of a series of verdicts and ongoing investigations, all while he campaigns for another term in the White House.
According to The Independent, Trump’s legal team filed a petition with the Supreme Court, asking it to throw out a $5 million judgment awarded to Carroll in 2022 by a federal jury in New York. The jury had found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, a verdict that was later upheld by a federal appeals court. In 2024, a separate jury awarded Carroll an additional $83.3 million in damages for defamatory statements made by Trump during and after his first presidential term. When Trump’s lawyers sought to overturn that larger verdict, the appeals court refused, declaring the judgment “fair and reasonable” in light of the “unique and egregious facts of this case.”
Trump’s Supreme Court petition, as reported by The Independent, labels Carroll’s case “facially implausible” and “politically motivated.” The 33-page brief argues that “no physical or DNA evidence corroborates Carroll’s story,” adding there were “no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation.” Trump’s attorneys contend that Carroll waited over two decades to bring her accusations forward, only doing so after Trump became president, allegedly to inflict maximum political damage and gain financially. The lawyers go as far as to claim that Carroll’s account “matches the plotline from an episode of one of admittedly her favorite TV shows, Law & Order.”
Carroll’s legal team, for their part, declined to comment when contacted by The Independent. But the courts have been clear in their rulings. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the trial, clarified a key point of public confusion: while the jury did not find Trump liable for “rape” under the strict definition in New York Penal Law, they did find him liable for sexual abuse. “The finding that Ms Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’” Judge Kaplan wrote. “Indeed, as the evidence at trial … makes clear, the jury found that Mr Trump in fact did exactly that.”
The distinction became a flashpoint when Trump sued ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos after Stephanopoulos incorrectly said the jury found Trump “liable for rape.” Judge Kaplan’s clarification underscored the gravity of the jury’s findings, even if the legal terminology differed from common usage.
Alina Habba, who represented Trump during the Carroll trials, was subsequently appointed acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey by Trump—a move that has raised eyebrows among legal observers and political opponents alike. The Carroll verdicts, meanwhile, are just one part of a much larger legal storm swirling around the former president.
After leaving the White House, Trump has faced a tidal wave of litigation. These range from criminal convictions for falsifying business records to a massive fraud judgment that put him on the hook for nearly half a billion dollars. Still, Trump has managed to sidestep some consequences. He avoided penalties after his criminal conviction in Manhattan and successfully appealed part of the fraud judgment. Two sweeping federal indictments—one over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and another for withholding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago—were dismissed after he reclaimed the presidency.
Not content to rest, Trump has embarked on what The Independent describes as a campaign of “retribution,” seeking not only to overturn the verdicts against him but also to prosecute those who have investigated or opposed him. He’s appealing the hush money trial verdict, which found he used his business to conceal payments to an adult film star, and is challenging the fraud ruling that accused him of grossly inflating his net worth and assets to secure favorable financing. Trump has also instructed his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to pursue federal indictments against New York Attorney General Letitia James, former FBI Director James Comey, and Congressman Adam Schiff—all figures who have played prominent roles in investigations and legal actions against him. The Justice Department, now under Trump’s direction, is pursuing conspiracy cases against former officials and political adversaries who previously targeted him.
Amid this flurry of legal activity, the Supreme Court’s role has become a focal point of national debate. As Substack columnist John Roberts’ former colleague put it, “John Roberts is presiding over the end of the rule of law in America.” The sense of alarm is palpable among those who see Trump’s actions as testing, or even breaking, the boundaries of legal accountability. The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority—including three justices appointed by Trump—has often been reluctant to intervene in Trump’s legal overreaches. Yet, as Substack reported, the court recently signaled skepticism about Trump’s use of tariffs, suggesting there may indeed be limits to presidential authority that even this court is willing to enforce.
Still, the consensus among many legal analysts and political commentators is that the Supreme Court alone cannot safeguard the American experiment from what they see as Trump’s “wrecking ball.” As Substack noted, “The Supreme Court can’t, and won’t, save the American experiment from Trump’s wrecking ball.” With congressional Republicans largely abandoning their traditional role as a check on executive power, and federal district judges calling out Trump’s overreaches throughout the year, the court’s occasional interventions may offer only limited relief.
This ongoing legal drama is unfolding against a backdrop of deep political division and heightened public scrutiny. According to Substack, the real constraint on Trump may not come from the courts at all, but from democracy itself—through the will of voters and the court of public opinion. As the country heads into another contentious election cycle, with Trump once again at the center of the storm, the outcome of these legal battles could shape not only his political future but also the broader trajectory of American democracy.
With the Supreme Court now considering Trump’s latest appeal, and with his campaign of legal retribution in full swing, the nation finds itself at a crossroads—one where the rule of law, the limits of presidential power, and the strength of democratic institutions are all being put to the test.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: the stakes have rarely been higher, and the eyes of the country—and the world—are watching closely to see what comes next.
