TRUMP'S COURTROOM WALKOUT RETURNS TO SPOTLIGHT AS $83.3M CARROLL JUDGMENT REACHES SUPREME COURT
NEW YORK — Updated September 10, 2026
One of the most dramatic moments in Donald Trump's civil litigation with writer E. Jean Carroll came on January 26, 2024, when Trump abruptly left a Manhattan federal courtroom during Carroll attorney Roberta Kaplan's closing argument. Minutes earlier, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan had sharply rebuked Trump lawyer Alina Habba, telling her she was 'on the verge of spending some time in the lockup' after she persisted in challenging a ruling about material the defense wanted to display to jurors.
The confrontation was real, but several viral retellings overstate what happened. The judge did not jail Habba, hold her in contempt, or impose a criminal sanction. And while news reports often described Trump as having 'stormed out,' the official appellate record uses the more neutral description that he stood up and walked out during Carroll's closing argument. He later returned for the defense summation.
FACT-CHECK AT A GLANCE
• VERIFIED: Judge Kaplan told Alina Habba she was 'on the verge of spending some time in the lockup' after she continued disputing a ruling before the jury entered.
• VERIFIED: Trump stood up and walked out during Roberta Kaplan's closing argument on January 26, 2024, and later returned for his own side's closing.
• CONTEXT: 'Stormed out' is a journalistic characterization; the court record itself says he stood up and walked out.
• VERIFIED: The jury awarded $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages, totaling $83.3 million.
• IMPORTANT: The 2024 proceeding concerned damages for Trump's 2019 defamatory statements. Liability had already been resolved by the court through issue preclusion based on the earlier Carroll verdict.
• CURRENT STATUS: The Second Circuit affirmed the $83.3 million judgment in September 2025 and denied rehearing en banc in April 2026. Trump filed a Supreme Court petition in July 2026; as of September 10, 2026, the Court has not ruled on that petition.
The Morning Began With a Fight Over What the Jury Could See
Court reporting from the final day describes Trump's team as arriving late, with tension already high before jurors entered. The immediate dispute concerned a presentation slide the defense wanted to use during closing arguments. Carroll's lawyers objected that the material had not been admitted into evidence, and Judge Kaplan ruled that it could not be shown to the jury.
Habba continued trying to argue the point. Kaplan cut her off with the now widely quoted warning that she was 'on the verge of spending some time in the lockup' and ordered her to sit down. The exchange was an unusually sharp courtroom rebuke, but it should not be rewritten as though the judge actually ordered Habba jailed. No such confinement occurred.
Trump Left During Carroll's Closing Argument
When the jury returned, Roberta Kaplan began arguing that the damages award needed to be large enough to compensate Carroll and deter further defamation. She emphasized that Trump had continued attacking Carroll after the earlier May 2023 verdict and during the litigation.
Roughly minutes into that closing argument, Trump rose from the defense table and left. Judge Kaplan interrupted briefly so the event would be captured in the record, noting that Trump had risen and walked out. Trump remained absent for the rest of Carroll's closing but came back before Habba delivered the defense summation.
COURTROOM RECORD
The record will reflect that Mr. Trump just rose and walked out of the courtroom.
The timing made the moment politically and visually striking, because Carroll's lawyers were arguing that ordinary rules and prior verdicts had not deterred Trump. But a careful account should stop short of claiming that the walkout itself caused the eventual award. Jurors do not issue explanations of how much weight they assign to individual courtroom moments, and the verdict form did not say that the exit added a particular dollar amount.
What the Jury Was Actually Deciding
The January 2024 proceeding was not a fresh trial on whether the underlying assault allegation was true. In a separate case tried in May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll under New York civil law and for defaming her in a 2022 statement. That jury awarded $5 million.
After that verdict, Judge Kaplan applied issue preclusion in the older defamation case involving statements Trump made in June 2019 while he was president. As a result, the 2024 jury was tasked principally with determining damages for those 2019 statements rather than relitigating liability from scratch.
That distinction matters. Viral summaries sometimes merge the two Carroll cases into a single proceeding. They were related, but legally distinct: one produced the $5 million verdict in 2023; the other produced the $83.3 million damages award in 2024.
The $83.3 Million Verdict
The nine-person jury awarded Carroll $11 million for a reputation-repair program and $7.3 million in other compensatory damages, for a total of $18.3 million in compensatory damages. It then awarded another $65 million in punitive damages after finding common-law malice under the court's instructions.
Punitive damages are designed to punish sufficiently blameworthy conduct and deter similar conduct in the future. The Second Circuit later noted that jurors were specifically instructed to consider the amount necessary to deter Trump from continuing to defame Carroll. That is more precise than saying punitive damages are simply 'a verdict about character,' which is rhetoric rather than a legal definition.
The Appeals Did Not End in 2025
Trump appealed the $83.3 million judgment. On September 8, 2025, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in full, rejecting his arguments concerning presidential immunity, issue preclusion, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and the size of the damages award.
The full Second Circuit declined to rehear the case en banc on April 29, 2026. Trump then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court on July 28, 2026. The Supreme Court docket lists the case as No. 26-141. Carroll's deadline to respond has been extended to October 30, 2026, which means the Court has not yet decided whether to hear the appeal.
The United States has also filed a separate Supreme Court petition, No. 26-142, arising from the government's unsuccessful effort to substitute itself for Trump under the Westfall Act. That petition likewise remains pending as of this update.
What the Walkout Does — and Does Not — Prove
The courtroom episode is a documented example of the unusually combative atmosphere surrounding Trump's Carroll litigation. It also gave reporters a vivid visual moment during an argument centered on deterrence and compliance with legal judgments.
Still, describing the exit as proof that Trump believed himself above the law goes beyond the evidentiary record and becomes interpretation. Carroll's lawyers advanced that theme; Trump and his attorneys maintained that he was defending himself against what he regarded as false allegations and an unfair legal process. A fact-checked account should identify those competing positions rather than convert either side's rhetoric into an established fact.
The legal consequence is clearer than the symbolism. A federal jury imposed an $83.3 million judgment, the Second Circuit affirmed it, and Trump's effort to obtain Supreme Court review remains unresolved. Whatever one makes of the walkout, leaving the courtroom did not alter the existence of the verdict or the appellate process that followed.
Conclusion
The January 26, 2024 confrontation remains one of the most memorable courtroom scenes in the Carroll litigation: a judge warning Trump's lawyer about possible lockup, Trump abruptly leaving during the opposing side's closing argument, and a jury returning an $83.3 million award later that day. The basic sequence is well documented. The strongest viral descriptions, however, often add conclusions that the record itself does not establish.
The most accurate version is therefore both dramatic and narrower: Habba received a severe warning but was not jailed; Trump walked out but later returned; the jury imposed $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages; and, as of September 2026, the $83.3 million judgment has survived the Second Circuit but is the subject of a still-pending Supreme Court petition.
SOURCES & VERIFICATION
NO SURRENDER — Ilhan Omar Fires Back at Donald Trump After Federal Agents Search Her Home
Ilhan Omar is refusing to back down after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., home in a criminal investigation—an extraordinary development that has reignited her long-running confrontation with Donald Trump just weeks before the midterm elections.
The Minnesota Democrat responded with a defiant message: “I will not be silenced.” She accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to target political opponents and described the search as another escalation in what she called a decade-long campaign of intimidation.
The statement immediately raised the political stakes. Omar is not simply disputing the circumstances surrounding the search; she is challenging the administration’s conduct and demanding that the public examine why federal agents took such a consequential step so close to an election.
But the central questions remain unresolved: What exactly are investigators looking for, what evidence supports the inquiry, and will the search trigger a broader confrontation between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration?
‘I Will Not Be Silenced’: Omar’s Defiant Response
On October 12, after news of the search emerged, Omar posted a response on social media that began with a brief reassurance: “I’m ok.”
She then delivered a much sharper political message, accusing the administration of targeting political enemies and weaponizing federal law enforcement.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns,” Omar wrote, describing the search as the latest escalation in what she characterized as political intimidation. She ended with a declaration that quickly became the defining line of her response: “I will not be silenced.”
Her congressional office issued a separate statement calling the search an “outrageous abuse of power” and an “unprecedented escalation” in the use of federal law enforcement against political opponents. The statement said Omar had done nothing wrong and argued that no president should be able to use the federal government to intimidate political adversaries.
Those are Omar’s allegations and her office’s position. The search itself was carried out under a judicially authorized warrant, according to the Justice Department. Whether investigators uncover evidence of wrongdoing—and whether the search was justified by the facts of the case—remains to be established.
What Happened at Omar’s Washington Home?
Federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, searched Omar’s Washington residence early Monday, October 12.
The Justice Department confirmed that agents executed a search warrant authorized by a court as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Officials did not publicly disclose a complete account of the evidence being sought or all the details of the inquiry.
Reporting by CBS News and The Washington Post indicated that investigators were examining immigration paperwork dating back to Omar’s childhood. The documents reportedly involved paperwork completed by her late father when the family came to the United States as refugees from Somalia.
The details remain limited, and the reported focus of the investigation should not be confused with a finding of guilt. A search warrant authorizes investigators to look for specified evidence; it does not establish that the person whose home is searched committed a crime.
Omar has repeatedly rejected allegations against her and portrayed the renewed scrutiny as politically motivated. Her office’s statement following the search reiterated that she had done nothing wrong.
As of the latest reports, authorities had not publicly laid out a complete evidentiary case against the congresswoman. That leaves a critical distinction at the center of the story: the investigation is real, but its ultimate findings are not yet known.
Why the Timing Has Become a Political Flashpoint
The search took place less than a month before the November midterm elections, when control of Congress is at stake. That timing has intensified questions from Democrats about whether the action could influence the political environment surrounding Omar’s reelection campaign.
House Judiciary Committee Democrats raised concerns about the search, while senior Democratic leaders condemned the action and questioned the use of federal power against a sitting member of Congress so close to an election.
The criticism centers on more than Omar’s personal dispute with Trump. It touches on a broader principle: federal law enforcement must be able to investigate potential crimes, but its decisions should be grounded in evidence and applied without improper political influence.
The Justice Department has confirmed the existence of a court-authorized search but has not publicly provided a full explanation of the investigative rationale. Without that information, it is not possible to establish from the public record alone whether the timing was politically motivated or driven by investigative necessities.
That uncertainty is likely to keep the controversy alive. Democrats are demanding answers about the decision and its timing, while the investigation itself remains ongoing.
A Long-Running Clash Between Omar and Trump
Omar has been one of Trump’s most prominent congressional critics. Their political conflict has repeatedly drawn national attention, with disputes involving immigration, national identity, federal enforcement and the congresswoman’s background.
Trump has frequently criticized Omar in public, while Omar has accused him of spreading false claims and using inflammatory rhetoric against her and the Somali American community.
In the days before the search, Omar had also criticized Trump’s rhetoric about Somali Americans. The latest federal action therefore arrived against the backdrop of an already bitter political relationship—not in isolation.
Still, a history of public hostility does not by itself prove that a federal investigation was politically directed. Establishing improper interference would require evidence about how the investigation was initiated, authorized and conducted.
That distinction matters because the controversy involves two separate questions: whether investigators have a legitimate basis to pursue the case, and whether the administration has handled the matter in a politically appropriate way.
Both questions deserve scrutiny, but neither should be treated as settled before the relevant evidence is available.
Democrats Demand Answers as the Investigation Continues
Omar’s response has been echoed by Democratic colleagues who say the search raises serious concerns about the use of federal power. Some have called for accountability and greater transparency about the investigation.
Their criticism is also shaped by the election calendar. A federal search involving a sitting member of Congress in the final weeks before voters head to the polls is certain to draw heightened political attention, even when authorities have a judicial warrant.
The administration’s position and the investigators’ evidence will be crucial to determining how the controversy develops. If officials disclose a clear evidentiary basis for the search, that information will help the public evaluate the government’s actions. If significant questions remain unanswered, pressure for congressional oversight may intensify.
For now, the public has only a partial picture of the investigation. Officials have confirmed a court-authorized search, but have not disclosed all the evidence or publicly established that Omar committed a crime.
What Happens Next for Ilhan Omar?
The immediate questions are whether investigators will release additional information, whether Omar or her representatives will provide further details, and whether congressional leaders will seek formal oversight of the search.
Omar has made her own position unmistakable: she intends to continue speaking out and views the search as an attempt to intimidate a political opponent. The Trump administration’s critics have embraced that interpretation, while the legal justification for the search must ultimately be evaluated through the evidence and applicable law.
The coming days could bring more details about the investigation, new statements from lawmakers and further debate over the role of federal law enforcement during an election season.
For now, the most defensible conclusion is also the most consequential: a federal search has triggered a major political confrontation, Omar has publicly challenged the administration’s motives, and key questions about the investigation remain unanswered.
Her “I will not be silenced” declaration has become a rallying cry for her response. Whether the dispute grows into a wider congressional battle will depend on what investigators reveal next—and whether the government can explain its actions in a way that withstands public and legal scrutiny.
