The Supreme Court has now postponed consideration of President Donald Trump's petition to review the $5 million civil judgment against him in the E. Jean Carroll case eleven separate times, and still has not offered a word of explanation for the repeated delays. The justices were scheduled to take up the matter again at a private conference Thursday, though even that date carried no guarantee.
The pattern raises a straightforward question that the Court apparently has no interest in answering: what, exactly, is the holdup?
Trump filed his petition in November 2025 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the jury's 2023 verdict in late 2024. The case has been fully briefed since January. By any normal measure, the petition is ready for a simple up-or-down decision on whether the Court will hear the appeal. Instead, the justices have rescheduled that consideration eleven times, most recently on Wednesday.
The appeal centers on trial-court decisions that Trump's legal team argues tainted the proceedings. Specifically, the petition contends the trial judge improperly allowed testimony from other women who accused Trump of assault and admitted the 2005 Access Hollywood tape, material Trump's lawyers say was prejudicial and should never have reached the jury.
Carroll's legal team countered that even if those evidentiary rulings were debatable, the disputed evidence did not affect the outcome given the strength of the overall case. A jury sided with Carroll in 2023 and awarded her $5 million for sexual abuse and defamation after she alleged Trump assaulted her in a Manhattan department store dressing room in 1996 and later dismissed her claims as a "hoax."
The Second Circuit agreed with Carroll's side. AP News reported that the appeals court voted 8-2 to reject Trump's petition for rehearing, with four Biden-appointed judges writing that "simply re-litigating a case is not an appropriate use of the process."
Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said after that ruling:
"E. Jean Carroll is very pleased with today's decision. Although President Trump continues to try every possible maneuver to challenge the findings of two separate juries, those efforts have failed."
That confidence from Carroll's camp hasn't changed the fact that the Supreme Court has neither accepted nor rejected the petition, it has simply refused to act.
Legal observers have noted the unusual nature of the repeated postponements. Just The News reported that some speculate the delays may be connected to a separate, larger judgment Carroll won against Trump, an $83 million defamation verdict from January 2024 that is also working its way through the appellate system.
If the Court is waiting to bundle both Carroll cases together, it has not said so. The justices have provided zero public explanation for the eleven reschedulings. That silence leaves Trump's legal team, Carroll's attorneys, and the public guessing.
For a Court that has shown it can move with speed when it wants to, as seen in its handling of Trump administration emergency appeals, the glacial pace on this petition stands out.
The $5 million verdict is only one piece of a broader legal picture. Carroll also won a separate $83 million defamation judgment against Trump, and that case has its own appellate track.
National Review reported that the appeals court upheld that larger judgment as well. Trump's legal team has indicated he may seek Supreme Court review of the $83 million verdict, raising the prospect that the justices could eventually face both Carroll cases on their docket simultaneously.
Fox News reported that the Second Circuit denied Trump's request for a full panel rehearing on the $83 million judgment, clearing the path for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Trump's lawyers have argued that presidential immunity should shield him from Carroll's civil claims, an argument that could carry broader constitutional implications if the Court agrees to hear it.
A federal appeals court previously denied Trump's bid to reopen the Carroll defamation verdict, leaving the Supreme Court as the last available forum for relief.
Whatever one thinks of the underlying allegations, the evidentiary questions Trump has raised deserve serious consideration. The admission of testimony from other accusers and the Access Hollywood tape at trial is not a trivial procedural complaint. Courts regularly grapple with whether such evidence unfairly prejudices a jury, and the rules governing its admission exist for a reason, to protect both plaintiffs and defendants from verdicts driven by emotion rather than the facts of the specific case.
The Second Circuit's 8-2 vote to deny rehearing was not unanimous. Two judges dissented, suggesting the evidentiary issues were at least debatable at the appellate level. Newsmax noted that Trump was denied reconsideration of the $5 million verdict, and that the separate $83.3 million judgment from January 2024 remains under appeal.
Trump has publicly expressed frustration with the judiciary on multiple occasions. He has questioned whether the Supreme Court is already aligned against him, a sentiment that eleven unexplained delays on a fully briefed petition will do nothing to dispel.
The justices were set to discuss Trump's petition at their private Thursday conference. If past practice is any guide, the matter could simply be rescheduled a twelfth time with no comment.
Three outcomes remain possible. The Court could grant certiorari and agree to hear the case, which would give Trump a chance to argue the evidentiary issues before the nation's highest court. It could deny the petition, leaving the $5 million verdict intact. Or it could continue to delay, perhaps waiting until the $83 million case is also petition-ready.
Trump's attorneys have built their appeal around concrete procedural objections. Trump's legal team has shown willingness to press these arguments in hostile forums, and the Supreme Court remains the final arena.
Carroll's side, meanwhile, has every incentive to run out the clock. Each delay keeps the $5 million judgment in place and collectable. If the Court ultimately declines review, the case ends.
The Supreme Court is not obligated to explain every scheduling decision. But eleven postponements on a fully briefed petition, with no public rationale, tests the patience of anyone who expects the judiciary to operate with transparency and dispatch.
Whether the justices are waiting on the $83 million case, wrestling with the presidential immunity question, or simply unable to reach internal consensus, the silence is itself a statement. It tells litigants and the public that the Court will move on its own timeline, accountability optional.
That may be the Court's prerogative. It shouldn't be its habit.
