Carroll v. Trump
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:20-cv-07311
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Carroll v. Trump, Judge Kaplan ordered the government to address whether an amended complaint would affect its Westfall Act substitution motion.
E. Jean Carroll, Donald J. Trump, and the government’s pending position concerning amendment of the complaint and substitution under the Westfall Act.
What happened
Carroll v. Trump is a case brought by E. Jean Carroll against Donald J. Trump. The order concerned the government’s request to replace Mr. Trump with the government under the Westfall Act, a federal law governing certain claims against federal employees.
The government had quoted an earlier decision saying that an amended complaint replaces the original complaint and can make a prior substitution request moot. The court ordered the government to explain by June 9, 2023, whether it believed that filing an amended complaint in this case would make its earlier certification ineffective and its substitution motion moot.
Judge Lewis Kaplan did not decide whether Carroll should be allowed to amend her complaint, or whether the government should replace Trump. The order required only the government’s response and expressly stated that the court was making no determination about the amendment request.
The detailed version
- Carroll v. Trump · No. 1:20-cv-07311
- Lewis Kaplan
- June 1, 2023
Background
The government sent the court a letter dated May 26, 2023. In that letter, it quoted a decision from another federal district court stating that an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint and that a prior request by the government to substitute itself for an individual defendant under the Westfall Act may therefore become moot. The Westfall Act provides a process for the government to seek substitution for a federal employee in certain civil claims.
The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail. It states that the government had previously made a Westfall Act certification and had moved to substitute itself for Donald J. Trump. It also refers to Carroll’s motion for leave to amend the complaint.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the government to advise it by June 9, 2023, whether the government’s position was that filing an amended complaint would make its previous Westfall Act certification ineffective and would make its motion to substitute itself for Trump moot.
The court expressly stated that it was not deciding whether Carroll’s motion for leave to amend should be granted or denied. The order therefore required additional clarification from the government but did not resolve the amendment request or the substitution motion.
Disposition
The court entered an order requiring the government’s response by a specified date. It did not grant or deny Carroll’s motion to amend, and it did not state that it granted or denied the government’s substitution motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.