Carroll v. Trump

Background

E. Jean Carroll brought this action against Donald J. Trump under New York’s Adult Survivors Act for the alleged rape and for common-law defamation based on statements Trump published on October 12, 2022. The defamation claim concerned statements Trump made on his social-media platform after the court denied motions in an earlier related case between the parties.

Trump moved for partial summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss only Carroll’s defamation claim based on the October 12 statement. He argued that the statement was protected by New York Civil Rights Law § 74, which provides protection for a “fair and true report” of a judicial proceeding. The opinion notes that Trump referred to this protection as the “absolute litigation privilege,” although that term generally refers to a different protection for statements made in pleadings or in court.

Court’s Analysis

The court identified two independent reasons for denying the motion.

First, the October 12 statement was not a “report of a judicial proceeding” under § 74. The relevant question was whether an ordinary reader could tell from the statement itself that it was reporting on a judicial proceeding. The court found that the statement did not purport to report on the earlier case. Instead, it expressed Trump’s personal views about the legal system, Carroll and her rape accusation, a television interview, and Carroll’s lawyer. The statement contained only two references to a judicial proceeding: calling the “Ms. Bergdorf Goodman case” a “complete con job” and referring to a decision by the judge in Trump’s “same case.” In the court’s view, those passing references did not connect the allegedly defamatory comments clearly enough to a judicial proceeding.

Second, the court held that summary judgment would be inappropriate even if the statement were treated as a report of a judicial proceeding. A report is “fair and true” when it is substantially accurate and does not create a materially different impression from the actual proceeding. Trump argued that his statement merely repeated his denials and affirmative defense in his answer in the earlier case. The court compared that answer with the October statement and found that a reasonable jury could conclude that the statement had a different effect on readers or went beyond what Trump’s answer reasonably suggested. The answer contained summary denials, while the October statement added accusations that Carroll had completely fabricated the story, changed it during a television interview, and promoted a book through the accusation, along with comments about the judiciary and Carroll’s lawyer.

The court expressly did not decide whether the October statement ultimately was or was not a fair and true report as a matter of law. It held only that a reasonable jury could decide that question.

Disposition

The court denied Trump’s motion for partial summary judgment. The ruling left Carroll’s defamation claim based on the October 12 statement unresolved at this stage. The opinion’s conclusion states only that the motion was “denied.”