Carroll v. Trump
23-1045-cv (L) & 23-1146-cv (Con) (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Presidential immunity from civil damages for official acts is an affirmative defense that is waivable if not timely raised by the defendant. This immunity is not a non-waivable defense based on the court's subject-matter jurisdiction.
Facts:
- In mid-1990s, an alleged sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll by Donald J. Trump occurred.
- On June 21, 2019, E. Jean Carroll publicly accused Donald J. Trump of the sexual assault.
- Following the accusation, Donald J. Trump, who was President of the United States at the time, made a series of public statements.
- On June 21, 2019, Trump stated that the event "never happened," that he had "never met" Carroll, and that she was motivated by trying to sell a book.
- On June 22, 2019, Trump stated that Carroll's claim was a "totally false accusation" and that she had accused other men of things as well.
Procedural Posture:
- On November 4, 2019, E. Jean Carroll sued Donald J. Trump for defamation in New York State Supreme Court, a court of first instance.
- On January 23, 2020, Trump filed his answer to the complaint but did not raise presidential immunity as a defense.
- On September 8, 2020, the United States removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- On December 22, 2022, Trump moved for summary judgment.
- On January 19, 2023, in his reply brief for the summary judgment motion, Trump raised the defense of presidential immunity for the first time.
- The District Court denied Trump's motion for summary judgment, determining that he had waived the defense of presidential immunity, and also denied his request for leave to amend his answer.
- After Carroll filed an amended complaint, Trump filed an answer asserting presidential immunity, which the District Court then struck.
- Trump, as appellant, appealed both the denial of summary judgment and the striking of his defense to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the affirmative defense of presidential immunity waivable by a defendant who fails to raise it in a timely manner at the outset of litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge José A. Cabranes
Yes, the affirmative defense of presidential immunity is waivable. The court held that absolute immunity defenses, including presidential immunity, do not pertain to a court's subject-matter jurisdiction and are therefore waivable if not timely asserted. The court rejected the argument that presidential immunity is a non-waivable jurisdictional defense, citing Supreme Court precedent in Nevada v. Hicks which states there is no authority for the proposition that immunity defenses are jurisdictional. The court reasoned that treating the defense as non-jurisdictional reinforces the separation of powers by allowing a President the autonomy to choose whether to litigate a claim. Furthermore, the court analogized presidential immunity to other forms of absolute immunity, such as prosecutorial and judicial immunity, which are also considered waivable affirmative defenses rather than jurisdictional bars.
Analysis:
This case establishes for the first time in this circuit that presidential immunity is not a structural, jurisdictional defense but a personal, affirmative defense that can be waived or forfeited. This decision significantly limits the ability of a former president to raise this powerful defense late in litigation, requiring it to be pleaded at the outset like other affirmative defenses. The ruling clarifies the nature of the immunity, distinguishing it from non-waivable issues like subject-matter jurisdiction, and will likely prevent its tactical use to derail long-pending civil cases. It underscores that even defenses rooted in constitutional principles like the separation of powers are subject to procedural rules of waiver.
