The Department of Justice (DOJ) had previously stated that Donald Trump was protected from legal action by E. Jean Carroll because the statements she claimed were defamatory were made during his time in office.
DOJ Declines to Certify that Trump has Absolute Immunity in E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case
In a recent development, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has declined to certify that former President Donald Trump is entitled to absolute immunity from a defamation lawsuit filed by writer E. Jean Carroll. This decision marks a significant development in the ongoing legal battle between Carroll and Trump.
Background
E. Jean Carroll, a prominent writer and advice columnist, accused Donald Trump of raping her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. In response to Carroll’s allegations, Trump denied the accusation and claimed that Carroll was lying to sell her new book.
DOJ’s Role
Traditionally, the DOJ has defended sitting presidents in civil lawsuits arising from their official duties. In this case, however, the DOJ declined to certify that Trump was acting within the scope of his employment as President when he made the allegedly defamatory statements about Carroll. This decision paves the way for Carroll to proceed with her defamation lawsuit against Trump.
Implications
The DOJ’s decision not to certify absolute immunity for Trump has broad implications for the legal landscape surrounding presidential immunity. It establishes a precedent that former presidents may not be entitled to the same level of protection from civil litigation as sitting presidents. This decision could have far-reaching consequences for future defamation cases involving former presidents.
Benefits and Practical Tips
- Former presidents may no longer be shielded from defamation lawsuits based on their official duties.
- Individuals who believe they have been defamed by a former president may have a better chance of holding them accountable in court.
- Legal experts advise potential plaintiffs to consult with experienced defamation attorneys to assess their chances of success in pursuing a lawsuit.
Case Studies
Several high-profile defamation cases involving former presidents have garnered media attention in recent years. These cases demonstrate the complexities of balancing free speech rights with the right to seek redress for defamatory statements.
| Date | Case | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 2019 | Summer Zervos v. Donald Trump | Zervos, a former contestant on “The Apprentice,” sued Trump for defamation after he denied her allegations of sexual misconduct. The case was settled out of court. |
| 2020 | Stormy Daniels v. Donald Trump | Daniels, an adult film actress, sued Trump for defamation over his denial of their alleged affair. The case was dismissed by a federal judge. |
Firsthand Experience
Individuals who have been defamed by public figures, including former presidents, may face significant legal hurdles in pursuing a defamation case. It is essential to gather evidence, consult with legal experts, and carefully consider the potential risks and rewards of litigation before proceeding with a lawsuit.
Overall, the DOJ’s decision not to certify absolute immunity for Trump in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case represents a significant shift in the legal interpretation of presidential immunity. This decision underscores the importance of accountability and justice in cases involving allegations of defamation, even when the accused party is a former president.
