The Supreme Court on June 29, 2026, denied Donald Trump's request to review a $5 million award against him in a lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll. On the same day, the Court added six new cases to its argument docket for the 2026-27 term and issued other orders from the justices' private conference held on June 25, 2026.

Carroll filed a lawsuit against Trump in 2022, alleging sexual abuse in a New York department store dressing room in 1996. She also accused him of defamation in a 2022 social media post, where he referred to her accusations as a "complete con job" and a "Hoax." Carroll utilized a New York state law enacted in 2022, which provided adult victims of sexual abuse a one-year window to sue their alleged abusers, even if the statute of limitations had expired. A jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll in 2023, awarding her $5 million. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit later upheld this verdict and declined to reconsider the case.

Trump petitioned the Supreme Court in November 2025 to review the case. He argued that lower courts should not have allowed the introduction of testimony by Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff, who claimed Trump assaulted them in 1979 and 2005 respectively. Trump also contended against the admission of the "Access Hollywood" tape, a 2005 recording in which he made comments about grabbing women. Carroll argued that the Supreme Court should deny review because the 2nd Circuit determined that any error in admitting this evidence would not have altered the outcome due to the strength of her case.

Among the cases granted review for the 2026-27 term is RiseandShine Corp. v. PepsiCo, which addresses whether a trademark’s "inherent strength" constitutes a question of law or fact. The Court will also hear Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, concerning the determination of "just compensation" when a private entity uses eminent domain for natural gas pipelines. International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson involves parental rights to challenge Washington laws that allow runaway teens to receive mental health care and treatment without parental consent. Wassily v. Blanche will consider whether noncitizens whose asylum is terminated can become lawful permanent residents. Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota challenges Arizona’s requirement of proof of citizenship for voter registration and whether the National Voter Registration Act permits states to remove noncitizens from voting rolls within 90 days of a federal election. Montoya Palacios v. Liggins will examine if a petition for habeas corpus challenging civil immigration detention is a "civil action" under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The Court declined to hear Dershowitz v. Cable News Network, a petition by Alan Dershowitz alleging defamation by CNN. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from this decision, with Justice Neil Gorsuch joining him. Justice Thomas stated that the standard in New York Times v. Sullivan "bears 'no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.'"

The Court also rejected a request from inmate Antonio Smith to review a federal appeals court’s determination that correctional officers were entitled to qualified immunity after spraying him with pepper spray and placing him in a cold cell. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit concluded that while a jury could find the officers’ actions violated the Eighth Amendment and lacked legitimate penological purpose, it granted qualified immunity because the law was not "clearly established." Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from this decision in Smith v. Kind, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor called the 7th Circuit’s "grant of qualified immunity … clearly wrong." She added that "‘clearly established law’ should not be defined ‘at a high level of generality,’" and that courts should consider previous cases with "similar circumstances." Sotomayor also stated that "the body of case law on needless deprivations of warmth in prisons made it abundantly clear, and beyond debate, that the officers’ treatment of Smith violated the Eighth Amendment."