The Supreme Court on Monday morning turned down President Donald Trump’s request to reconsider the justices’ denial of review in a civil suit brought by journalist E. Jean Carroll, which yielded a $5 million verdict against the president. The announcement came as part of the second of three scheduled “summer order lists.”
Consistent with its general practice, the court did not provide any explanation for its decision to deny Trump’s petition for rehearing in Trump v. Carroll. The court rarely grants such petitions; indeed, it has not done so since 2018.
Summer order lists normally serve as an opportunity for the justices to clear out some of the pending requests for action – particularly petitions for rehearing – that accrue between the end of June or early July, when they hold their final conference before their summer recess, and late September, when they return and hold the so-called “long conference.” Although the court ordinarily does not add new cases to its merits docket, it sometimes opts to do so, as it did on July 20, when it granted review in Jouppi v. Alaska.
Carroll filed the lawsuit at the center of the dispute in 2022. She alleged that in 1996 Trump had sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at a New York department store and then in 2022, after she went public with her assault allegations, defamed her.
After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld the jury’s verdict, Trump went to the Supreme Court. In a petition filed in November 2025, he argued that Carroll should not have been allowed to introduce testimony by other women who also alleged that Trump had assaulted them, as well as the 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump bragged about grabbing women by their genitals.
Carroll urged the justices to turn down Trump’s appeal. She argued that even if the introduction of the evidence was improper, it ultimately did not matter because the rest of her case was so strong.
Although the justices were initially slated to consider Trump’s original petition for review at their Feb. 20, 2026, conference, they put off doing so until their June 25 conference and denied it four days later.
Trump returned to the court on July 8, asking the justices to reconsider their decision to leave the 2nd Circuit’s decision in place. He contended that at his trial, Carroll’s lawyers had relied on statements that he had made while president. He argued that a second petition for review, which his lawyers filed on July 28 in a lawsuit by Carroll that yielded an $83 million award against Trump, “will present the issue of whether” those “statements constitute protected official acts, which they do.” And if the Supreme Court agrees, he said, then they should not have been introduced into evidence in the 2022 case either.
On July 13, Carroll received the $5 million (plus interest), which had been held in an escrow account after the verdict. The court is likely to consider Trump’s second petition for review in the fall.
The justices also turned down a request from Verizon Communications for them to modify an earlier ruling against the carrier. On June 4, the Supreme Court ruled that the process that the Federal Communications Commission uses to impose sanctions for violations of federal telecommunications laws – under which the agency can issue an order (known as a “forfeiture order”) finding a company liable and instructing it to pay a penalty – does not violate the constitutional right to a jury trial.
On June 29, Verizon filed a petition for rehearing in which it emphasized that it was not asking “the Court to reconsider its June 4 opinion.” Instead, Verizon explained, the court in a footnote had acknowledged the carrier’s argument (made along with AT&T, the other litigant in the case) that “the specific forfeiture orders in this case misled them into paying, and that a refund is therefore appropriate.” The court did not weigh in on this question, writing instead that it “express[ed] no view on the merits of this argument, what relief may be available to the carriers, or in what proceeding.”
The Supreme Court’s decision reversed the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in AT&T’s favor and sent the case back to that court “for further proceedings consistent with” the Supreme Court’s decision – which, Verizon said, will give AT&T the opportunity to challenge the forfeiture order entered against it. Verizon suggested that it should be allowed to have the same option, but contended that it currently does not, because the Supreme Court had merely “affirmed” the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in the FCC’s favor. Verizon therefore asked the justices to “modify” their ruling and send its case back to the lower court so that the 2nd Circuit can “consider its challenge to” the specific forfeiture order entered against Verizon.
In a brief order and without any explanation, the court on Monday declined to do so.
The third and final summer order list is scheduled to be issued on Sept. 4.
