T.R.U.M.P TAKES HIS E. JEAN CARROLL NIGHTMARE TO THE SUPREME COURT — CAN THE JUSTICES SAVE HIM FROM NEARLY $90 MILLION IN JUDGMENTS?

In a move that was as inevitable as it was explosive, Donald Trump has now turned to the last court left on the board: the U.S. Supreme Court. His lawyers are asking the justices to overturn a civil jury’s finding that he sexually abused and defamed writer E. Jean Carroll — a $5 million judgment that sits on top of a separate $83.3 million defamation verdict, leaving the former president facing nearly $90 million in legal fallout from one woman’s story.

Trump’s petition, filed this month, urges the high court to throw out the 2023 verdict in which a Manhattan federal jury found him liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s and then defaming her in an October 2022 Truth Social post. It’s the same case that produced the now-famous trial featuring Carroll’s testimony, corroborating witnesses, the “Access Hollywood” tape and testimony from other women who accused Trump of similar misconduct — evidence Trump’s team now calls “highly inflammatory” and unfair.

On paper, this is a narrow legal appeal. In reality, it’s a high-stakes political gamble. If Trump can convince at least four justices to take the case — and a majority to side with him — he could not only wipe away the original $5 million judgment, but also undercut the foundation of the later $83.3 million defamation verdict, which rested on the first jury’s finding that he sexually abused Carroll. If he loses, the message is just as clear: the country’s highest court will have effectively signed off on the civil finding that a former president sexually abused and defamed a private citizen — and the massive damages that followed.

Trump’s legal team is throwing everything it can at the wall. In their filing, they argue that Judge Lewis Kaplan “warped” federal evidence rules by allowing jurors to hear from two other women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct, and by letting the jury watch the “Access Hollywood” tape where Trump bragged about grabbing women without consent. They describe Carroll’s story as “implausible” and “politically motivated,” noting the lack of physical evidence, DNA, eyewitnesses or police report — even though the civil standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” not “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The problem for Trump: every court that has looked at this case so far has rejected those arguments. A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the $5 million verdict, describing the jury’s award as “fair and reasonable” and finding no reversible error in Kaplan’s evidentiary rulings. When Trump asked the full appeals court to step in, they said no. And when he tried to escape the follow-on $83.3 million defamation judgment, the same appeals court brushed him back again, leaving both verdicts intact.

So now, Trump is doing what Trump always does when cornered: changing the venue and changing the narrative. Publicly, he frames all of this as “liberal lawfare” — a witch hunt funded by Democrats to destroy him politically. His legal team’s statement to the press blasted the Carroll cases as “hoaxes” and portrayed the Supreme Court petition as part of a larger “crusade” against weaponized justice. Privately, there’s no question the financial and reputational threat is real. Carroll has already won; the only question is whether the checks will clear after the last appeal is exhausted.

Critics say the Supreme Court is being asked to do what Trump-appointed judges on the 2nd Circuit refused to do: rescue him from a case that was tried, appealed and affirmed under ordinary rules of civil law. Supporters counter that the case is exactly the kind of high-profile legal battle the justices should hear, arguing that the trial court’s decision to admit prior-bad-acts evidence and a now-infamous entertainment tape created an unfair spectacle that no civil defendant, even a former president, should face.

Layered on top of the legal fight is the raw political theater. Trump has built a 2024 comeback campaign on the argument that he is the victim of a coordinated “deep state” attack — pointing to criminal indictments, civil fraud judgments and the Carroll cases as proof of persecution. Now, with this petition, he’s effectively telling his base: even the Supreme Court, reshaped by his three appointments, must step in to stop the “witch hunts.”

That, in turn, puts the justices in an uncomfortable spotlight. The Court is already facing historically low approval ratings and accusations of partisanship. If it declines to hear the case, Trump will almost certainly blast the institution as part of the same “rigged system” he rails against everywhere else. If it agrees to hear it — particularly if it later reverses — critics will accuse the Court of acting like a political shield for the man who nominated nearly a third of its members.

Meanwhile, Carroll’s side is projecting calm. Her attorney has said publicly that they don’t believe Trump can raise any serious legal question worthy of Supreme Court review and that the lower courts have already spoken clearly. Carroll herself has remained largely out of the limelight, having already done the hardest part: testifying under oath, enduring cross-examination and waiting for jurors to decide whether they believed her. They did.

Outside the courtroom, the culture war rages on. Every new filing in the Carroll saga instantly becomes fodder for dueling narratives: on one side, Trump supporters insisting he’s being targeted for daring to challenge the establishment; on the other, critics arguing that powerful men are finally being held accountable in ways that would have been unthinkable a generation ago. The Access Hollywood tape, once a flash point of the 2016 race, is back in the conversation as a symbol of how long-ignored behavior can come back to haunt a politician.

Legally, the next steps are technical but crucial. The justices will first decide whether even to take the case. Most petitions die quietly at this stage; the Court grants only a small fraction of the thousands it receives each year. If four justices vote yes, the case will be added to the docket, full briefing and argument will follow, and the country will watch as lawyers re-litigate, at the highest possible level, what happened in a Manhattan department store almost 30 years ago and how that story was told in a New York courtroom two years ago.

If the Court says no, the legal part of this saga is functionally over. Carroll will be one step closer to collecting on judgments that, taken together, stand as some of the most consequential civil penalties ever levied against a former president for personal misconduct. Trump, already touting a recent win overturning a massive civil fraud penalty in another New York case, will have to sell his supporters on a more uncomfortable message: that not every court can be bent to his will.

For now, the story sits in a familiar holding pattern: Trump on offense, lawyers firing off briefs, pundits picking sides, and a nation waiting to see whether the Supreme Court will step into a case that blends celebrity, politics, #MeToo and the raw question of whether a powerful man can ever truly leave his past — and his verdicts — behind. Whatever the justices decide, it won’t just be about one lawsuit or one $5 million judgment. It will be about how far the law reaches when the defendant once occupied the most powerful office in the world.