US appeals court rejects Trump’s latest bid to delay paying E Jean Carroll $5.8m11%

By https:50% www.theguardian.com53% profile53% victoria-bekiempis31% Victoria Bekiempis31%

7/9/2026, 1:31:02 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 0 faulty reasoning types, including no named faulty reasoning patterns yet, with no single egregious example has been isolated yet. Analysis detected 0 faulty-reasoning hits from 569 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.1% and a BS Rank of 11% (12,404 of 13,932 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 89.00% of the article peer group.

Donald Trump attends a press conference at the Nato summit in Ankara, Turkey, on 8 July. Photograph: Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto/Shutterstock

US appeals court rejects Trump’s latest bid to delay paying E Jean Carroll $5.8m

US president contested judge’s order to release money after Carroll’s 2023 sexual abuse and defamation trial against him

A Manhattan federal appeals court late on Wednesday rejected Donald Trump ’s latest bid to delay the payment of more than $5m to E Jean Carroll following her successful 2023 sexual abuse and defamation trial against him.

The US court of appeals for the second circuit made its decision hours after Trump filed paperwork fighting Manhattan federal court judge Lewis Kaplan’s order releasing this money – which has been held in a court-controlled account since June 2023. Trump denies all wrongdoing.

Trump’s asked the second circuit, “on an emergency basis”, for an “immediate administrative stay” of Kaplan’s order. His request was “to preserve the status quo” while this court can weigh his upcoming request for a stay while the appeals process plays out, court papers said.

With accrued interest, the total court-held amount is now about $5.8m. Trump filed paperwork indicating his appeal within an hour of Kaplan’s order.

Kaplan’s order stated: “The Clerk is respectfully directed to disburse … the value of the principle Judgment, which amounts to $5,000,000.00… The Clerk is further respectfully directed to disburse … the value of the post-judgment interest.”

US judge orders release of $5.8m Trump owes E Jean Carroll after court loss

Several hours after ordering the release of these funds, Kaplan released a memorandum explaining his decision.

“In the last analysis, defendant has been stalling this case for years,” Kaplan wrote. “A jury unanimously concluded that he sexually abused and defamed plaintiff and awarded her damages accordingly.”

“The judgment on that verdict has been upheld on appeal. En banc rehearing has been denied. The Supreme Court has denied certiorari without dissent,” Kaplan said.

“It’s time for him to ‘do equity’ and pay the judgment.”

Kaplan’s mandate came in the wake of the US supreme court’s refusal on 29 June to hear Trump’s appeal of Carroll’s case. After the justices denied his request to hear his appeal, Carroll’s attorneys asked Kaplan to order the prompt release of these funds.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

“After four years of litigation across every level of the federal court system, it is time for this case to end,” Roberta Kaplan, the lead Carroll attorney, argued in court filings. “And under the Court’s Stipulation and Order, Carroll is now entitled to obtain payment of the money due under the judgment.”

Trump had asked Kaplan not to order the release of these funds. The president said that he was asking the supreme court to reconsider hearing his appeal.

About six weeks after Carroll’s win, both her and Trump’s legal team agreed that he could deposit $5m, as well as 11% interest, in a court-administered fund while his appeals played out. As part of that agreement, her lawyers said, the money was to be paid out upon definitive legal developments – including the supreme court rejecting Trump’s appeal.

Trump’s team has claimed that Carroll’s representatives had engaged in an “incorrect reading” of this agreement, claiming it “does not permit collection while the rehearing petition remains unresolved”.

Explore more on these topics

Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
0%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

569 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.