The Supreme Court is stepping into a high-profile legal battle involving President Donald Trump, as it prepares to review his challenge to a 2023 verdict in a civil lawsuit filed by journalist E. Jean Carroll.

On Feb. 20, the justices will hold a private conference to discuss multiple petitions, including Trump’s request for a review of the decision that found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll $5 million in damages in May 2023, though they could act as early as Feb. 23 or delay a decision announcement until March 2 or later, per SCOTUS Blog.

The case stems from Carroll’s 2019 book, where she alleged Trump assaulted her in 1996 at Bergdorf Goodman, claims Trump has consistently denied, leading to defamation charges after his public criticisms.

Trump's Legal Team Pushes Back Hard

Trump’s attorneys have come out swinging, labeling Carroll’s allegations as “facially implausible” and “politically motivated” in their petition to the court, Fox News reported.

They argue the lower court’s verdict was tainted by what they call a “series of indefensible evidentiary rulings,” allowing questionable testimony and evidence like the 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape, which became a focal point in the 2016 election cycle.

Reading their filing, one can’t help but wonder if justice took a backseat to narrative—after all, they point out there’s no physical evidence, no witnesses, and a 20-plus-year delay in accusations conveniently timed with Trump’s presidency.

Carroll’s Allegations Under Scrutiny

Carroll, a well-known advice columnist, first made her claims public in 2019, alleging an incident from 1996, which Trump has repeatedly called a fabrication, even stating on Truth Social in October 2022, “I don't know this woman, have no idea who she is.”

His legal team also questions why additional testimonies from Jessica Leeds, alleging an incident in 1979, and Natasha Stoynoff, claiming an event at Mar-a-Lago in 2005, were admitted despite what they see as credibility gaps.

Is it fair to stack decades-old, uncorroborated stories against a man’s reputation, especially when the timing smells of political opportunism?

Evidence or Lack Thereof Debated

Trump’s attorneys hammer home a glaring issue: no DNA, no video, no police report—just a story they claim mirrors a plot from Carroll’s supposed favorite show, “Law & Order.”

They argue she waited over two decades to speak, only doing so after Trump became the 45th president, suggesting a motive to inflict maximum political damage while cashing in on the controversy.

If evidence is the backbone of justice, one might ask why this case seems to lean so heavily on emotion over substance.

Carroll’s Attorney Dismisses Supreme Court Odds

Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, isn’t holding her breath for Supreme Court intervention, stating, “We do not believe that President Trump will be able to present any legal issues in the Carroll cases that merit review by the United States Supreme Court.”

That confidence might be a poker face, but it overlooks the serious procedural questions Trump’s team raises about how the trial unfolded—questions that could resonate with justices wary of activist-driven rulings.