Carroll v. Trump

Background

E. Jean Carroll brought this defamation action against Donald J. Trump based on statements he made in 2019 after Carroll publicly accused him of sexually assaulting her in the mid-1990s. Trump’s statements denied that he knew or had met Carroll and accused her of fabricating the accusation for improper purposes.

The action was initially filed in New York state court and later removed to the Southern District of New York. The opinion states that the case had been delayed by several efforts to pause the proceedings. Discovery had been completed, most pretrial matters had been resolved, and the court had set trial for January 15, 2024. The only remaining pretrial matter identified by the court was briefing about whether findings in a related case, referred to as Carroll II, would have a preclusive effect in this case.

In December 2022, after litigating the case for more than three years, Trump first asserted that absolute presidential immunity protected him from Carroll’s suit based on his 2019 statements. The court previously ruled that Trump had waived that defense by not raising it earlier. It also denied his request to amend his answer to add the defense, concluding independently that the amendment would be legally futile and that Trump had delayed too long, unfairly prejudicing Carroll. Trump filed an appeal from that ruling.

Motion to Stay

Trump’s fourth request to pause the case sought a stay pending resolution of his appeal. The court applied four factors: whether Trump showed a strong likelihood of success, whether he would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether a stay would substantially injure Carroll, and where the public interest lay.

The court concluded that Trump had not shown any likelihood of success on appeal. It said his arguments largely repeated arguments previously rejected and did not meaningfully address the court’s reasoning that he had waived the immunity defense and that allowing him to add it late would be futile. The court also rejected his claim of irreparable harm, emphasizing that he waited more than three years to raise immunity and another seven months before seeking a stay. Because discovery and nearly all pretrial proceedings were complete, the court found that the principal remaining burden was having to stand trial, which did not establish irreparable harm in these circumstances.

The court found that a stay would likely injure Carroll by causing further delay in resolving her claims. It also found that the public interest weighed against a stay because, although there is a public interest in protecting presidents for actions within the scope of their duties, there is also a public interest in holding presidents accountable for actions that do not fall within that scope and in allowing a potentially entitled plaintiff to receive compensation while still able to use it.

Jurisdiction and Disposition

Trump separately argued that filing the appeal had deprived the district court of authority over the entire case. The court assumed, without deciding, that the ruling rejecting his immunity defense was immediately appealable. It nevertheless held that the appeal did not remove the district court’s authority because the court certified the appeal as frivolous. The court stated that Trump had not presented arguments different from those already rejected and had not engaged with the court’s prior analysis.

The court denied Trump’s motion for a stay pending appeal and certified that the appeal itself was frivolous. This opinion did not decide the underlying defamation claim.