The Supreme Court is poised to tackle a high-profile petition from President Donald Trump, seeking a review of a 2023 civil verdict tied to a lawsuit by journalist E. Jean Carroll.

On Feb. 20, the justices will hold a private conference to consider multiple petitions, including Trump’s request to revisit the outcome of Carroll’s case against him, with potential action as early as Feb. 23, though a decision might not be announced until March 2 or later, according to SCOTUS Blog.

According to Fox News, the issue has sparked intense debate over the fairness of the legal process and the weight of allegations made decades after the alleged events.

Tracing the Origins of Carroll’s Claims

Carroll, a well-known journalist and advice columnist, first made her accusations public in a 2019 book, claiming an incident occurred with Trump in 1996 at Bergdorf Goodman, near Trump Tower.

Trump has consistently denied the claims, labeling the case a fabrication and asserting no evidence—physical, DNA, eyewitness, or video—supports Carroll’s story.

After Carroll’s public allegations, Trump’s sharp rebuttals, including calling it “a complete con job,” led to defamation claims added to her legal action.

Jury Verdict and Legal Fallout

In May 2023, a jury found Trump not liable for rape but held him accountable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll $5 million in damages.

Trump’s legal team has since pushed back hard, arguing in their petition that the accusations are “facially implausible” and driven by political motives rather than truth. They’ve also pointed out Carroll waited over 20 years to come forward, timing her claims with Trump’s presidency to, in their view, inflict maximum political damage and personal gain.

Disputed Evidence Under Scrutiny

Trump’s attorneys have taken issue with several court decisions, particularly the admission of testimony from Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff, who made separate allegations of assault from 1979 and 2005, respectively.

They argue these accounts carry credibility gaps and inconsistencies, questioning why such testimony was allowed to bolster Carroll’s case.

Adding fuel to the fire, the inclusion of the 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape—infamous from the 2016 election cycle—drew objections from Trump’s team as irrelevant and prejudicial.

Weighing the Supreme Court’s Role

Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, has downplayed the odds of 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.”

Yet, Kaplan’s confidence might underestimate the justices’ interest in examining whether lower courts overstepped with evidentiary rulings that Trump’s team calls a “series of indefensible” missteps.

If the Court takes up the case, it could set a precedent on how delayed allegations and disputed evidence are handled in civil suits, a matter of principle that transcends any single courtroom drama.