Carroll v. Trump

Background

E. Jean Carroll brought this defamation case against Donald J. Trump based on statements Trump made in 2019, shortly after Carroll publicly accused him of sexually assaulting her in the mid-1990s. The court had granted Carroll’s motion for leave to amend her complaint on June 13, 2023. This memorandum stated the reasons for that decision.

Changes to the complaint

The amended complaint made three main groups of changes:

The amended complaint also alleged that a corrective campaign to repair the reputational harm caused by Trump’s statements would cost at least $10 million, according to Carroll’s damages expert. The court emphasized that the amendment added no new claims and did not change the focus of the original complaint.

Trump’s objections

Trump chiefly argued that replacing “rape” with “sexual assault” fundamentally changed the substance of Carroll’s allegations, particularly because of the related jury verdict. The court rejected that argument. It explained that the verdict’s answer to a question about whether Trump “raped” Carroll established only that Carroll had not proved penetration with Trump’s penis. The court stated that the jury’s finding that Trump sexually abused Carroll implicitly determined that he penetrated her with his fingers, which the court described as a form of “rape” as that word is often used. The court did not decide whether the verdict’s finding would legally bind the parties in this case.

The court also concluded that Carroll’s claim had never depended on the precise anatomical meaning of “rape.” Instead, the case focused on whether Trump defamed Carroll by saying that she invented an account of a forcible sexual assault for improper reasons. The court noted that Trump had denied knowing Carroll or that anything had happened between them, without making the distinctions about the specific conduct that he raised in opposing the amendment. The court further stated that the details of the alleged encounter had been explored in discovery and that Trump had not been prejudiced by the amendment.

Trump separately argued that allegations about his remarks at a CNN town hall after the related verdict were futile because those remarks were protected by New York’s fair-report privilege. That privilege generally protects a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding. The court rejected the argument because the amended complaint did not assert a defamation claim based on the town-hall remarks. Instead, Carroll offered the later statements as evidence that Trump made the 2019 statements with deliberate intent to injure, hatred, ill will, or spite—what the opinion called common-law malice—for purposes of seeking punitive damages. The court found no authority supporting Trump’s position that statements potentially privileged as the basis of a defamation claim could not be considered for the separate purpose of evaluating punitive damages.

Ruling and significance

The court concluded that none of Trump’s arguments justified denying Carroll’s motion for leave to amend. The court therefore granted Carroll leave to file the amended complaint. This ruling concerned amendment of the pleadings and did not decide whether Trump was ultimately liable for defamation or whether Carroll was entitled to punitive damages. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan dated and signed the memorandum on July 25, 2023.