Court to hear arguments in E. Jean Carroll defamation case against Trump

Lawyers for the New York-based writer E. Jean Carroll argue that Trump acted as a private citizen when he denied raping Carroll, and therefore can be sued like anyone else. Trump’s lawyers argue that his responses were made as part of his job as president — which would effectively end Carroll’s case against him.

The hearing is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m., though a ruling is not expected for weeks.

Carroll, a former advice columnist for Elle magazine, described her encounter with Trump in a 2019 book excerpt in New York magazine, alleging Trump raped her in a dressing room at the Manhattan department store Bergdorf Goodman.

Trump repeatedly denied the claims in interviews with reporters. In a 2019 interview with the Hill, he said: “Number one, she’s not my type. Number two, it never happened.”

The interview occurred, according to the article, as Trump was seated in the Oval Office.

Carroll then filed the defamation lawsuit against Trump.

The case originated in New York and followed a circuitous path that has led it to the D.C. court.

Late in Trump’s presidency, the Justice Department argued he was acting within the scope of his duties as president when he answered a reporter’s question about the allegations — which would have short-circuited the lawsuit, because of protections the government has in defamation cases. But a federal judge in New York sided with Carroll, ruling Trump did not qualify as a government “employee” under federal law, nor was he acting “within the scope of his employment.” The Justice Department then appealed, an effort that continued into the Biden administration.

In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York overturned portions of the ruling, deciding that Trump counted as an employee of the federal government. But the federal appeals court asked the D.C. court to decide whether his statements were in the scope of his employment. If the court deems that his statements were part of his presidential role, the case will probably be dismissed.

Tuesday’s arguments are scheduled to be argued en banc, in front of all nine judges. The proceedings can be viewed via the court’s YouTube channel.

In a filing with the D.C. court last month, Carroll’s attorneys argued that Trump “did not attack Carroll intending to advance any federal interest. Instead, he lied to protect himself from the truth and to destroy Carroll for daring to speak up.”

“Presidents are free to deny allegations of misconduct. But a White House job is not a promise of unlimited authority to brutalize victims of prior wrongdoing through vicious, personal, defamatory attacks. That is not the law — and this Court should not make it so,” her attorneys argued in the filing.

The Justice Department and Trump’s attorneys have argued that responding to the news media was part of Trump’s job as president. In a November filing, Trump’s attorneys argued that “the President is expected to respond to questions from the media that affect his ability to maintain the trust of the American people and effectively carry out his official duties.”

“Pursuant to the case law in this jurisdiction, responding to accusations involving personal matters that may affect his ability to perform his job duties is clearly within the scope of such employment,” the attorneys wrote.

Also in November, Carroll filed a separate lawsuit in New York against Trump under a new law called the Adults Survivors Act. It gives adult sexual assault survivors up to a year to file a lawsuit, regardless of when the alleged violation happened.