Donald Trump’s latest attempt to delay payment of a $5.8m judgment for defaming a magazine columnist whom a jury determined he sexually abused has been emphatically rejected by a federal court judge.

In a single-sentence 4 July order, US district Judge Lewis Kaplan denied the president’s request for more time to pay the civil judgment owed to E Jean Carroll, who was awarded the damages after a New York jury concluded that Trump sexually abused her in 1996 – then defamed her after she publicly described the attack in 2019.

Trump’s move came days after the US supreme court, without explanation or reasoning, turned down his demand to review the jury’s 2023 verdict.

In a subsequent filing to Kaplan, the judge overseeing the case, Trump’s attorneys referred to how his former lead counsel, Justin Smith, had been confirmed to a federal judgeship in June on the president’s nomination. New lead counsel Josh Halpern therefore needed more time “to become completely familiar with the facts and procedural circumstances”, Trump’s attorneys contended.

Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, who is no relation to the judge, responded that the request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time” – noting Trump nominated Smith for the court of appeals more than five months previously, and that he had “ample time to retain new counsel”.

Judge Kaplan’s rejection of Trump’s motion was recorded as a “text-only order” in an entry on the case docket, meaning it included no accompanying formal written order.

It means the president has until Tuesday to release the money, which is being held in an escrow account, to Carroll – or file additional arguments as to why he will not do so.

The case is separate to Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation. But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.

“We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing,” the Carroll attorney Kaplan wrote.

In one of his final acts as Trump’s attorney, Smith in June wrote to the US supreme court that his client would be appealing the larger award. He argued that “the court may wish to consider the petitions together” given they involve the same parties.

The second case raises questions of presidential immunity since it relates to statements Trump made about Carroll during his first term. Winning a conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out.

Judge Kaplan has made several rulings during the course of the case that have angered Trump. In 2023, after the jury’s award, Trump – a Republican – posted an angry statement to his Truth Social platform, alluding to Kaplan’s appointment to the federal judiciary during the presidency of Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

He wrote: “What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be, speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”