Before E. Jean Carroll's name became tied irrevocably to Donald Trump's, she was a trailblazer in New York City's elite literary circles.

E. Jean Carroll, who was found to have been sexually assaulted by Donald Trump, will likely pursue a $83-million judgment against the president-elect "with renewed vigor" after an appeal court victory, a trial attorney has told Newsweek.

Donald Trump's sentencing for his conviction on criminal charges stemming from hush money paid to a porn star was delayed on Tuesday until Sept. 18, less than seven weeks before the U.S. election.

Carroll achieved a partial victory in 2023 when a federal jury awarded her $5 million in damages — a decision Trump has appealed. Learn more about the Trump-Carroll legal battle here.

Carroll, a longtime magazine columnist, testified during the 2023 trial that a chance meeting with Trump in the spring of 1996 took a dark turn. According to Carroll, what began as a lighthearted exchange escalated into a violent assault after the two entered a department store dressing room.

An appeals court upheld a verdict against Trump for sexual abuse and defamation, as his spokesperson once again called the claims a “hoax”

An appeals court has rejected Donald Trump's attempt to overturn a jury's verdict last year that found he sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s.

A jury last year found that Carroll was sexually abused by Trump at a Manhattan department store in 1996 and that he defamed her in later statements.

President-Elect Donald Trump has lost his bid to overturn a $5 million jury verdict finding him responsible for sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll.

A federal appeals court ruled against President-elect Donald Trump's appeal of a $5 million award to columnist E. Jean Carroll.

We are republishing it with the news that President-elect Donald Trump lost his appeal to a federal jury. Before E. Jean Carroll's name became tied irrevocably to Donald Trump's, she was a ...

In a 77-page ruling, a three-judge panel said the president-elect did not demonstrate that the district court erred in any challenged rulings.