Case: Donald J. Trump, President of the United States v. E. Jean Carroll, No. 25-573
Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2025-11-13
Status: Pending
Question Presented: I. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 415 overrides Rule 403’s requirement to balance the probative value of temporally remote propensity evidence against its prejudicial effect before such evidence can be admitted? II. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 413(d) authorizes the admission of temporally remote propensity evidence that the defendant committed the “crime” of “sexual assault” when the alleged prior act did not constitute a crime or a sexual assault? III. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2) permits the admission of “modus operandi” or “corroboration” evidence of prior “bad acts” without establishing a non-propensity purpose of the evidence, such as identity, absence of mistake, or another enumerated exception in Rule 404(b)(2)?
The Court’s April 16, 2026 rescheduling order marks the seventh time this petition has been redistributed for conference. That degree of repeated rescheduling is unusual and suggests either that the Justices are actively deliberating over the petition or that the case is being held pending some other development. Petitioner’s reply brief was filed on January 28, 2026, so the record has been complete for some time.
The underlying litigation is well documented. Trump’s petition, handled on his behalf by Justin Daniel Smith, argues that the Second Circuit misread those rules by allowing evidence of acts that were temporally remote and that did not qualify as “sexual assault” under Rule 413(d).
The three questions presented are narrow but consequential for evidence law. Rules 413 and 415 have generated circuit disagreement about how Rule 403 interacts with their permissive admissibility standard. If the Court grants certiorari, it would address whether district courts retain meaningful discretion to exclude propensity evidence under those rules. As reported in February, the petition is being watched closely given the identity of the petitioner.
The repeated rescheduling does not signal a likely grant, but it does indicate the petition has not been summarily denied. A grant would open a significant question about the scope of propensity evidence rules that affects cases well beyond this one.