Court Rejects DOJ’s Move to Substitute Trump
A federal appeals court has refused to allow the Justice Department to replace President Donald Trump as the defendant in E. Jean Carroll’s $83.3 million defamation judgment. The DOJ had argued the statements in question were part of Trump’s official duties, which would fall under presidential immunity. But the court declined to step in on his behalf.
The Hill reports:
It’s the latest setback for the president in his efforts to fight Carroll’s lawsuits at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Last week, the 2nd Circuit upheld her earlier $5 million jury award.
On Wednesday, the three-judge panel denied the Justice Department’s request to replace Trump as the defendant in Carroll’s defamation lawsuit under the Westfall Act, a 1988 law that protects federal employees from certain lawsuits concerning things they did in the course of their jobs.
The Justice Department contended Trump’s denials of Carroll’s sexual assault claims in a written statement and comments he made on the White House South Lawn in 2019 — the basis of her suit — were made within the scope of Trump’s employment as president.
“The Court will issue an opinion detailing its reasoning in due course,” reads the 2nd Circuit’s one-page order rejecting the effort without further explanation.
Background: Twin Verdicts and Ongoing Appeals
- In January 2024, a jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million after finding Trump defamed her on Truth Social by calling her claims a “hoax,” statements made during his presidency.
- It stemmed from a separate instance, beyond the earlier $5 million verdict in May 2023 over sexual abuse and defamation.
Presidential Immunity Courtroom Clash
Trump’s team, backed by the DOJ, claimed the defamation was part of his official presidential speech, asserting absolute immunity. Carroll’s lawyers argued otherwise, insisting the statements were personal and fell outside any presidential role.
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
READ NEXT: Courtroom Bombshell: ISIS-Linked Suspect Targeted Huge College Stadium
Not quite understanding how that someone can win a court case that really has no proof that the alleged offense ever happened. Quite confusing.
BS
The 2nd must be a democrat appointed court