Fact Check: Judge Steven Menashi, a Trump appointee, dissented in the appeals court decision, arguing that the district court should have allowed evidence regarding Trump's belief that Carroll's lawsuit was politically motivated.

Published June 14, 2025

•By

FactChecker 1.1

VERDICT

Partially True

# Fact Check: Judge Menashi's Dissent on Trump's Appeal in Carroll Case ## What We Know Judge Steven Menashi, appointed by former President Donald Tr...

Fact Check: Judge Menashi's Dissent on Trump's Appeal in Carroll Case

What We Know

Judge Steven Menashi, appointed by former President Donald Trump, dissented in a recent appeals court decision regarding the $5 million judgment against Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case. The appeals court declined to rehear Trump's challenge to the ruling, which stemmed from a jury's finding that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll in the 1990s and subsequently defamed her. In their dissent, Menashi and fellow Trump appointee Judge Michael Park argued that the district court should have allowed evidence regarding Trump's belief that Carroll's lawsuit was politically motivated (BBC, Law & Crime).

The dissenting judges expressed concern that the decision not to rehear the case "sanctioned striking departures" from legal precedent, indicating that they believed the trial court's evidentiary rulings were problematic (BBC, Wric). Menashi specifically noted that the trial judge's refusal to allow evidence of Trump's alleged political motivations behind Carroll's lawsuit was a significant oversight (KXAN, Yahoo).

Analysis

The claim that Judge Menashi dissented on the grounds that the district court should have allowed evidence regarding Trump's belief about the political motivations behind Carroll's lawsuit is accurate. Menashi's dissent explicitly stated that the exclusion of such evidence was a critical error in the trial process (Law & Crime, JAM Broadcasting).

However, it is essential to consider the context of this dissent. Menashi's position reflects a broader judicial philosophy that may favor defendants in high-profile cases, particularly those involving public figures. Critics of Menashi's dissent have pointed out that his arguments may stem from a bias towards Trump, given his appointment by the former president and the contentious nature of the case (Wric, Above the Law).

The dissent has been described as "grody" and "indefensible" by some legal commentators, suggesting that while Menashi's concerns about evidentiary issues are valid, the manner in which they were presented may lack the necessary objectivity expected from a judge (Above the Law). This raises questions about the reliability of his arguments and whether they are rooted in a genuine concern for legal precedent or influenced by partisan considerations.

Conclusion

The claim that Judge Steven Menashi dissented in the appeals court decision, arguing that the district court should have allowed evidence regarding Trump's belief that Carroll's lawsuit was politically motivated, is Partially True. While Menashi did dissent and raised valid concerns about evidentiary rulings, the context of his dissent and potential biases must be acknowledged. His arguments, while legally grounded, may also reflect a broader partisan perspective, which complicates the interpretation of his dissent.

Sources

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:

"Coffee helps you live longer"

✓100% Free

✓No Registration

✓Instant Results