Carroll v. Trump

Background

E. Jean Carroll alleged that Donald J. Trump raped and groped her in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan sometime between fall 1995 and spring 1996. Trump denied the allegation. Carroll said she did not make the allegation public for many years because of shock, fear, self-blame, concern that she would not be believed, and what she described as a broader culture of silence surrounding sexual assault.

New York enacted the Adult Survivors Act in 2022. The Act created a one-year period beginning November 24, 2022, during which adult survivors of sexual assault could bring civil claims that otherwise would have been barred by the statute of limitations. Carroll filed this case nine minutes after that period began. Her complaint asserted two claims: one seeking damages and other relief for the alleged rape, and another alleging that Trump defamed her in a written statement posted on October 12, 2022.

Trump’s Motion

Trump moved to dismiss the complaint. He argued that the Adult Survivors Act violated the Due Process Clause of the New York Constitution, which would make Carroll’s sexual-assault claim untimely. He also argued that Carroll’s defamation claim was legally insufficient because she did not plead special damages, generally meaning a specific economic loss. Trump separately moved to stay the case while the court considered the dismissal motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the Adult Survivors Act was constitutional under New York law. It applied the New York Court of Appeals’ rule that a statute reviving otherwise time-barred claims satisfies the state Due Process Clause when it is a reasonable measure addressing an injustice. The court concluded that New York’s Legislature reasonably identified an injustice in the inability of many adult survivors of sexual assault to pursue civil remedies because they were unable or afraid to come forward before the earlier limitations periods expired. The court also rejected Trump’s arguments that the Act was unreasonably broad or insufficiently supported by legislative materials.

The court separately held that Carroll adequately pleaded libel per se, meaning written defamation that is actionable without proof of special damages. Carroll alleged that Trump’s written social-media statement accused her of fabricating a rape allegation and lying to promote her book. Because Carroll was alleged to be a writer, advice columnist, and journalist, the court concluded that the statement could disparage her in her profession. The court distinguished libel from slander and rejected Trump’s reliance on the more demanding rules sometimes applied to spoken statements.

At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court assumed that Carroll’s well-pleaded factual allegations were true and stated that whether the alleged rape actually occurred would have to await later proceedings if the complaint survived the motion.

Disposition

The court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss. It denied Trump’s motion to stay as moot. The opinion therefore left both claims in the case, but it did not decide whether Trump raped Carroll or whether Carroll ultimately would prevail on either claim.