Trump fails to overturn $5m damages award to E Jean Carroll for defamation

[onenote]

14. Hardly a bombshell

A three judge panel unanimously ruled against his initial appeal. Seeking a rehearing en banc would have required a majority of the court's members to disagree with the unanimous panel. Two of the judges on the original 3 judge panel are senior judges and don't participate in deciding petitions for rehearing. And three of the court's 13 judges sat out the case (two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee), so there were ten judges considering the rehearing request, one of which already had decided against Trump in the original decision and could not have been expected to change her position. So to get rehearing he would have needed six of the remaining nine to go his way. Of those remaining nine, one was a GW Bush appointee, three were Trump appointees and 5 were appointed by Obama or Biden. Two of the Trump appointees dissented while the other joined the majority.

Moreover, rehearing en banc is disfavored and rarely granted.

In short, it would have been a bombshell if the court had ruled for Trump, not ruling against him