E Jean Carroll and her lawyers (Photo: Image via Melissa Bender/Shutterstock.)
Georgetown Law School Professor Steve Vladeck has some assumptions about why the U.S. Supreme Court may have put off President Donald Trump's appeal of the E. Jean Carroll settlement a whopping 15 times.
Writing for his Substack, Vladeck recalled that Trump filed a "cert petition" last November. A cert petition is when a defendant asks a higher court to review a lower court's decision.
This week, the Supreme Court decided to "reschedule" its conference over the matter for the 15th time and refused to explain why they did it.
"As I explained in a previous issue, there’s an important but elusive difference between what it means when the Court 'reschedules' a petition and what it means when it 'relists' one," wrote Vladeck. “'Relisting' is more common, and is usually a sign that a case has been discussed, and that we’re just waiting for the Court’s disposition (whether because the justices are confirming that there are no obstacles to granting certiorari, or because someone is preparing an opinion respecting a denial of certiorari)."
He noted that rescheduling is less common. In this case, Vladeck said, "a case can be “rescheduled” at the request of a single justice, and is usually rescheduled for reasons external to the case — but that may affect it (e.g., additional proceedings in related cases; pending legislation; etc.)."
In one case, Jones v. Oklahoma, the case was rescheduled 24 times, which is the current record.
There are two defamation cases from Carroll that are key to the argument. Both were filed by Carroll in a New York court against Trump for defamation. Trump lost, and the jury awarded Carroll $5 million in one case and $83.3 million in the other. Carroll alleged that Trump sexually assaulted her inside of a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman in 1996. To decide whether Trump defamed Carroll it first had to decide whether it believed Carroll or Trump's story about what happened. They ruled that Carroll was "sexually abused" by Trump and then found in favor of Carroll in both defamation cases.
Justices are likely waiting for the second Trump case to be submitted for appeal. It is on its way, said former Trump lawyer Justin Smith in a filing.
"I write to advise the Court that President Donald J. Trump intends to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in Carroll v. Trump, No. 24-644 (2d Cir.) (Carroll I), within the next month. Because Carroll I involves the same parties and overlaps with the President’s pending petition for a writ of certiorari in Carroll II, the Court may wish to consider the petitions together," he wrote.
He pointed out that Smith's filing has "no explanation for how the questions presented in Carroll II are actually affected by the questions that will be presented in Carroll I — which is what we’d normally expect in a request like this."
In the background of this, the Justice Department has targeted Carroll, alleging she lied under oath when she said no one was funding her legal fees.
Vladeck followed with a disclaimer that "it is really difficult to believe that the Court would show anywhere near the same kind of procedural deference to any litigant other than Trump."