A federal appeals court in Manhattan handed former President Donald Trump a procedural victory Tuesday in a defamation lawsuit, after famed columnist E. Jean Carroll claimed that Trump had raped her in the 1990s.
In a two-to-one decision on Sept. 27, the panel on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court erred when it ruled that Carroll could sue Trump for defamatory statements during his presidency, given that a federal law, known as the Westfall Act, shields government employees from liability in work-related incidents.
Carroll, 78, sued Trump in 2019, claiming the Republican sexually assaulted her in the mid-1990s in a dressing room at a Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan. Because the alleged attack happened decades ago, Carroll was originally barred from suing over sexual battery, pushing her to sue for defamation over allegedly disparaging comments Trump made about the rape allegation.
The D.C. Court of Appeals is now asked to weigh in on whether Trump was acting within the scope of his presidential duties when he denied raping Carroll and dismissed her during the interview. If Trump was, he would be entitled to immunity from the lawsuit, according to the ruling by the 2nd Circuit judges. And while the U.S. government can be sued over some wrongdoing by its employees, it is immune from defamation lawsuits, which would mean Carroll’s suit would fail.
In a majority opinion written by Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi on Tuesday, two members of the 2nd Circuit’s three-judge panel declined to further address the defamation action while the matter was “of extreme public importance.”
“We do not pass judgment or express any view as to whether Trump’s public statements were indeed defamatory or whether the sexual assault allegations had, in fact, occurred,” the judges said.
Trump’s lawyer Alina Habba, meanwhile, welcomed the decision, saying it “will protect the ability of all future presidents to effectively govern without hindrance.”
“We are confident that the D.C. Court of Appeals will find that our client was acting within the scope of his employment when properly repudiating Ms. Carroll’s allegations,” she said in a statement.
Dissent
In an opinion written by Judge Denny Chin, the third judge who dissented, he said that the law protecting federal employees from liability does not apply to Trump. He said it was only to protect low-level, rank-and-file government employees rather than the president.And he said at least some of the former president’s statements were not part of his official duties.
“Trump was not acting in the scope of his employment when he made comments about Carroll and her accusations because he was not serving any purpose of the federal government,” wrote the judge, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama.
“In the context of an accusation of rape, the comment ‘she’s not my type’ surely is not something one would expect the President of the United States to say in the course of his duties. Carroll’s allegations plausibly paint a picture of a man pursuing a personal vendetta against an accuser, not the United States’ ‘chief constitutional officer’ engaging in ‘supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity,’” Chin added.
Endorsing Chin’s dissenting opinion, Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan also said she was “confident” that the D.C. appeals court would agree that Trump’s statements were unrelated to his job.
However, chances remain that the legal fight over whether Trump or the U.S. government should be the defendant in the case could become moot. Carroll’s lawyer alerted a Manhattan federal court judge in August that she plans to file a new lawsuit against Trump when New York’s Adult Survivor’s Act takes effect on Nov. 24. The new law offers a one-year “window” during which time adult survivors of sexual attacks are able to bring civil claims when they otherwise would be barred by time requirements.
That would mean Carroll could sue Trump over the original rape allegation, which happened long before he became president.
