Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan issued a ruling that advances Elisabeth Jean Carroll’s defamation dispute with former President Donald Trump by granting a partial victory and setting a clear scope for the next phase. The judge decided that the January proceeding should be limited to assessing the damages owed by Trump, rather than reconsidering the broader factual findings from earlier proceedings in which sexual abuse was established in connection with Carroll’s allegations.
Specifically, Kaplan’s order confines the upcoming judicial round to determining the monetary compensation that Trump must pay Carroll for his past statements describing her as 0crazy and for asserting that her account of the sexual assault she says she endured in the 1990s was false. The decision narrows the focus of the case, directing attention to damages rather than revisiting the elements of liability that had already been addressed in prior rulings or findings.
The upcoming trial, expected to take place in New York in January, is slated to proceed without Trump in the courtroom. It will follow a Manhattan federal jury verdict delivered in May that found Trump liable for sexually assaulting Carroll in the Bergdorf Goodman locker room during the mid-1990s. The courtroom handling of this matter has become a focal point in the ongoing discourse surrounding Trump and his public statements about the case.
Carroll’s lawsuit centers on the alleged 1996 incident at Bergdorf Goodman, a high-end department store in Manhattan. She asserts that Trump assaulted her in a dressing area, while Trump has repeatedly denied the incident, suggesting that Carroll was pursuing publicity through a book and a political strategy rather than presenting a truthful account. The case has woven together elements of personal assault claims with defamation concerns triggered by Trump
s public comments labeling Carrolls account as false or fabricated.
The timing of the next phase matters within a political landscape that includes a crowded field of Republican contenders by the time the trial resumes. Analysts note that the January hearing occurs amid ongoing debates over accountability, legal standards, and the interplay between personal accusations and public communication by a high-profile figure who has pursued political ambitions. Beyond the courtroom, the proceedings have spurred conversations about the impact of statements on victims, reputations, and the potential remedies available through civil damages.