President Donald Trump’s lawyers filed a Trump rehearing petition with the Supreme Court after the justices on June 29, 2026, declined to take up his appeal of a $5 million civil judgment tied to a 2023 jury verdict in favor of writer E. Jean Carroll. The rehearing request asks the justices to reconsider the denial or to hold action while a related appeal raises questions about presidential immunity.
The rehearing filing, submitted after a brief technical correction to the initial document, frames the petition as necessary because another imminent petition in Carroll I will present questions about presidential immunity for official statements that counsel say could be dispositive for Carroll II — the separate case that produced the $5 million award. The Supreme Court has not yet acted on the rehearing petition.
Why the Trump rehearing petition raises immunity questions
Trump’s lawyers told the Court they “respectfully petition for rehearing” of the June 29 order denying certiorari, arguing that Carroll I (No. 24-644 in the 2nd Circuit appeals posture) will raise novel and potentially controlling questions about the scope of presidential immunity when a president’s on-duty statements are used in later civil litigation. According to the rehearing submission, resolution of those immunity issues could substantially affect evidentiary rulings and the legal framework applied in Carroll II.
The petition characterizes the immunity questions as potentially dispositive and asks the Court either to grant rehearing to review Carroll II or to hold the rehearing petition pending the Court’s consideration of Carroll I. Those are procedural options the Court sometimes uses when related matters are before it, particularly where one case’s outcome may determine the appropriate disposition of another.
These immunity claims are presented as legal arguments from Trump’s team; they have not been decided by the Court and are disputed by Carroll and her attorneys. The rehearing filing does not itself adjudicate factual disputes in the underlying civil trials, but asks the justices to revisit their earlier decision not to grant review in light of the related petition.
Timeline of filings and court docket notes
Key dates and docket activity explain how the rehearing request reached the Court and why the petition emphasizes the relationship between the two Carroll matters:
- June 29, 2026 — The Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari in connection with the $5 million judgment in Carroll II, leaving the district court judgment intact for now. That $5 million award follows a 2023 jury verdict in which a jury found Trump liable on claims including sexual abuse and defamation; Trump has consistently denied the allegations.
- Early the following week — According to the Supreme Court docket, an initial rehearing filing was submitted but required a technical correction and was not formally accepted until corrected.
- Wednesday after the correction — A corrected rehearing petition bearing counsel names including Michael Martinich-Sauter was submitted, explicitly asking the justices to reconsider the June 29 denial or to hold action pending the imminent Carroll I petition.
- As of this article’s publication — The Court has not entered any public order resolving the rehearing request, and routine practice leaves such procedural rulings to be reflected on the public docket.
What the Court can do next and possible timing
Rehearing petitions after a denial of certiorari are rarely granted. Under the Court’s practices, a successful rehearing typically requires a new, intervening development that was not previously considered and that would likely have a substantial or controlling effect on the Court’s disposition. The petition here advances that the related Carroll I filing presents such an intervening issue.
The justices have several procedural options: they can deny the rehearing motion and let the denial of cert stand; they can grant rehearing and place Carroll II back on the docket for plenary consideration; or they can hold the rehearing petition in abeyance while considering Carroll I. Holding related petitions pending resolution of a controlling question is a recognized practice when the Court views one case as potentially dispositive for others.
Media reports and docket watchers have suggested the Court could act within weeks. Some outlets cited as early as July 20 as a possible window for a procedural order, though the Court issues orders on its own schedule and does not provide public timetables for these specific internal rulings. Any procedural decision would be reflected on the Court’s public docket and in subsequent reporting.
What could happen next
If the Court holds the rehearing petition pending resolution of Carroll I, enforcement of the Carroll II judgment could remain in legal limbo until that related matter is decided or otherwise resolved. If the Court grants rehearing, the case could be placed back on the merits calendar and potentially lead to briefing and argument on issues the justices deem appropriate. If the Court denies rehearing, the lower-court judgment would remain in place subject to post-judgment enforcement and any remaining state- or federal-level procedural avenues.
Observers caution that while the rehearing petition seeks dramatic relief, the bar for changing a denial is high. Any public timeline is subject to the Court’s internal processes and the possibility that other filings or developments could alter the case’s trajectory.
Background and legal context
The $5 million judgment in Carroll II stems from the 2023 trial and the separate civil proceedings in which jurors found liability on specified claims. Carroll I, in contrast, centers on appellate and potentially Supreme Court review of immunity and related legal questions tied to different aspects of the matters involving the parties. Counsel for Trump contend that resolving immunity in Carroll I could materially affect the legal framework applied in Carroll II.
All allegations in the underlying civil cases remain contested in litigation and in appellate filings. The rehearing petition advances legal arguments and seeks procedural relief; it does not by itself change factual findings made by the jury in the earlier trial proceedings.
Source attribution and reporting notes
This article is based on reporting from Fox News and public Supreme Court docket records. See the Fox News report on the rehearing filing and related coverage, and the Supreme Court’s public docket for docketed entries and filing notations: Fox News; Supreme Court public docket: supremecourt.gov/docket. The rehearing petition bears the name of counsel including Michael Martinich-Sauter, and Fox News credited reporters including Shannon Bream and William Mears in its coverage.
Reporting note: This story summarizes arguments made in court filings and media reporting. Allegations in the underlying civil case are contested in court records; the rehearing petition presents legal arguments rather than resolved factual determinations. We will update this item as the Supreme Court posts any orders or new docket entries.
