The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused once more to hear President Donald Trump’s bid to overturn a New York jury’s $5 million finding that he sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll.

The justices did not explain their decision to decline to take the case, a standard practice when the high court turns away petitions.

This marks the second time this year the Court has rejected Trump’s effort to erase the civil verdict.

Carroll has delayed collecting the judgment for an extended period while the president pressed his appeals.

Trump’s legal team continues to contest a separate $83.3 million defamation award Carroll won against him in a related case. In that matter, his lawyers argue he is entitled to presidential immunity.

The $5 million verdict stemmed from a jury’s determination in the battery and defamation proceedings that Trump had sexually abused Carroll.

The larger award followed a subsequent defamation trial. Both cases have unfolded against a backdrop of intense political scrutiny and repeated legal challenges from the Trump side.

Trump has consistently denied Carroll’s accusations and maintained that the civil proceedings were politically motivated.

His attorneys have pursued every available avenue to contest the outcomes, including the immunity claim now central to the remaining $83.3 million judgment.

The Supreme Court’s latest refusal leaves the $5 million finding intact for now, clearing a path for Carroll to seek payment after prolonged litigation.

Meanwhile, the defamation appeal proceeds in lower courts, where the presidential immunity argument remains a focal point of Trump’s defense.

Legal observers note that the high court’s decision not to intervene follows its earlier rejection of a similar petition.

With no written opinion issued, the justices simply denied the request without further comment.

The rulings leave Trump’s broader legal strategy focused on the outstanding defamation case.

His team has signaled it will continue pressing the immunity defense as that matter advances.

As the president’s lawyers press forward on the remaining judgment, the $5 million verdict stands as a finality the Court has twice declined to disturb.

Back in June, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear President Trump’s appeal of a $5 million civil verdict finding him liable for sexual abuse and defamation in the long-running case brought by Carroll.

The denial leaves intact a jury’s 2023 decision from New York federal court, even as the sitting president contends the proceedings represent a politically motivated distraction from his duties leading the nation.

Legal observers note that certiorari denials are common and do not necessarily endorse the lower courts’ reasoning, but the outcome forces Trump to shoulder the judgment while pressing forward on other fronts.

The case traces back to Carroll’s allegation that Trump sexually abused her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s.

A jury found Trump liable for sexual battery—not rape under New York civil definitions—and defamation related to his public denials of her claims.

Carroll was awarded $5 million total.

A separate defamation trial produced an $83.3 million award, which remains under appeal and subject to further challenges, including arguments over presidential immunity and the Westfall Act.

They highlighted the admission of testimony from two other women who accused Trump of past misconduct, along with the infamous 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape in which he made crude remarks about women.

Trump’s petition contended these elements violated federal rules of evidence, created unfair prejudice, and conflicted with precedents on similar-fact evidence.

Lawyers described Carroll’s allegations as “implausible” and “unsubstantiated,” insisting the entire matter amounted to a politically timed effort to damage him.

Trump himself has repeatedly called the claims a “con job” and “fiction,” pointing to what he sees as inconsistencies in Carroll’s account and motivations tied to book sales and political opposition.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the $5 million verdict, determining that the evidentiary rulings by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan fell within permissible discretion and that any potential errors were harmless.

They argue the civil standard of proof — preponderance of evidence rather than beyond reasonable doubt — allowed the case to proceed on thin grounds, amplified by media coverage hostile to the former and current president.