Another courtroom setback stings President Trump. On June 13, 2025, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in an 8-2 vote, rejected his bid to rehear an appeal tied to a 2023 jury verdict. That verdict found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll.

In 2023, a New York jury ruled Trump sexually abused Carroll in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the mid-1990s and defamed her by denying her claims, ordering him to pay $5 million. According to The Hill, the 2nd Circuit’s decision leaves the Supreme Court as Trump’s last hope to overturn it. His legal team now faces an uphill climb.

The saga began when Carroll, a former advice columnist, accused Trump of assaulting her decades ago. Trump’s denials, often sharp and public, led to her defamation claims. The jury’s 2023 verdict was a blow to Trump’s narrative of being unfairly targeted.

Appeal Denied, Questions Linger

Last year, a three-judge panel unanimously upheld the 2023 verdict. Trump’s team argued the trial was marred by improper evidence, like the “Access Hollywood” tape and testimony from other accusers. The full 2nd Circuit bench, minus three recused judges, saw no reason to revisit.

“Simply re-litigating a case is not an appropriate use of the en banc procedure,” said U.S. Circuit Judge Myrna Pérez. Her words dismiss Trump’s plea as a mere do-over attempt. Yet, the process feels like a legal hamster wheel to his supporters.

Trump also wanted jurors to know a nonprofit tied to Democratic donor Reid Hoffman funded Carroll’s legal fees. The trial judge barred this, likely to avoid political mudslinging. One wonders if jurors might’ve viewed the case differently in that context.

Dissent Highlights Trial Concerns

Two Trump-appointed judges, Steven Menashi and Michael Park, dissented in the 8-2 vote. “The result was a jury verdict based on impermissible character evidence and few reliable facts,” Menashi argued. His critique suggests the trial leaned more on emotion than evidence.

Menashi’s dissent resonates with those skeptical of politicized courtrooms. If “normal rules of evidence” were sidelined, as he claims, it fuels perceptions of a system stacked against Trump. Fairness, not just victory, should guide justice.

Carroll’s team celebrated the ruling. “E. Jean Carroll is very pleased with today’s decision,” she and attorney Robbie Kaplan said. Their glee underscores the personal stakes in this legal grudge match.

Second Lawsuit Looms Large

This case was Carroll’s first of two against Trump. In her second lawsuit, another jury hit Trump with an $83.3 million defamation tab for persisting in his denials. That appeal is set for oral arguments on June 24, 2025.

The second appeal could shift dramatically. The panel will weigh whether the Justice Department can step in as defendant, potentially sparing Trump the massive payout. Such a move would spark fierce debate over governmental overreach.

Trump’s legal team remains defiant. “The American People are supporting President Trump in historic numbers, and they demand an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system,” a spokesperson declared. The rhetoric paints Carroll’s case as a Democratic-orchestrated “hoax.”

Political Stakes and Public Perception

The spokesperson’s claim of a “Democrat-funded Carroll Hoax” taps into MAGA distrust of elite institutions. Yet, two juries have now ruled against Trump, and courts aren’t budging. Persuading supporters of a conspiracy without concrete proof is a tough sell.

“President Trump will keep winning against Liberal Lawfare,” the spokesperson added, tying the case to Trump’s broader fight against perceived progressive overreach. The term “lawfare” captures conservative fears of legal battles as political weapons. Still, courts don’t seem to share the sentiment.

Carroll’s side sees vindication. “He remains liable for sexual assault and defamation,” Carroll and Kaplan stated, framing Trump’s losses as undeniable. Their confidence may galvanize progressive hopes but risks entrenching partisan divides over justice.