Hold onto your hats, folks -- allies of Donald Trump have stormed the Supreme Court with a bold request to toss out massive civil judgments against the former president in the E. Jean Carroll case, as the Washington Examiner reports.
This legal showdown involves a plea to vacate over $88 million in penalties tied to accusations of sexual abuse and defamation, with a sharp focus on questionable DNA evidence handling and the use of a New York law for old claims.
Let’s rewind to the mid-1990s, when Carroll alleges an incident occurred, a claim she brought forward decades later thanks to New York’s Adult Survivors Act, signed in 2022.
That law allowed her to file a lawsuit long after the supposed event, a move Trump’s team argues stretches legal fairness to its breaking point.
Fast forward to the pretrial phase in early 2023, when Trump offered a DNA sample -- but only if Carroll provided a full report on a dress she claims holds evidence, an offer she turned down.
Curiously, no sperm was found on the garment, yet Trump didn’t follow through with a sample after that initial period, leaving a gaping hole in the evidence chain.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan stepped in on Feb. 15, 2023, ruling that Trump’s offer came too late and siding with Carroll, a decision that smells of bias to many on the right.
Worse, jurors never heard about the missing DNA evidence, as Kaplan deemed it too prejudicial -- apparently, only one side’s feelings matter in this courtroom.
America First Legal, founded by Trump adviser Stephen Miller, has filed an amicus brief, slamming Carroll’s refusal to pursue testing as a credibility killer, and they’ve got a point when evidence seems cherry-picked.
The jury, seemingly swayed by unrelated accusations against Trump allowed into testimony, awarded Carroll $5 million initially, followed by a staggering $83.3 million in a later verdict for defamation.
Trump’s camp contends these sums are absurd, arguing that without DNA evidence, proving “actual malice” for defamation is a legal long shot, not a slam dunk.
As Emily Percival, senior counsel at America First Legal, put it, “Federal courts must apply the rules of evidence the same way in every case.” Well, if consistency is the goal, this case feels more like a circus than a courtroom.
Percival didn’t stop there, asserting, “What happened here was the opposite: unreliable allegations were admitted, critical rebuttal evidence was excluded, and the result was a verdict divorced not only from the standards that protect every litigant, but also reality itself.” That’s a zinger with teeth—when rules bend for one side, justice itself takes a hit.
Now, with the Supreme Court extending deadlines for public responses, a decision on whether they’ll take up this hot-button case won’t come until early next year, leaving Americans to wonder if equal treatment under the law is still a thing.
America First Legal President Gene Hamilton summed up the stakes: “If the rules don’t apply equally to everyone, then they don’t protect anyone.” It’s hard to argue with that logic—without fairness, the legal system risks becoming just another tool for political agendas, a concern that resonates deeply with those wary of progressive overreach in our courts.