

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The courts, backed by impacted people, are proving to be a significant check on Trump’s thirst for absolute power.
US President Donald Trump is on a losing streak this week. Just look at the latest judicial decisions challenging his policies, from mass deportations to tariffs to his troop deployments to US cities.
The courts are proving to be a significant check on Trump’s thirst for absolute power.
These cases illustrate the point:
Over Labor Day weekend, Immigration and Customs Enforcement attempted to begin deporting up to 700 unaccompanied Guatemalan children. In the dead of night, the first children were loaded onto planes in south Texas. “These are unaccompanied children who do not have a parent or a guardian with them,” Efrén Olivares, an attorney representing the minors, said on the Democracy Now! news hour.
At 1:00 am on Sunday morning, Olivares and his colleagues filed an emergency complaint with the federal court in Washington, DC. Judge Sparkle Sooknanam was woken after 2:00 am, and by 4:00 am she issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deportations until the children had the immigration hearings to which they have a legal right.
Meanwhile in Texas, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, considered the nation’s most conservative, ruled that Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport people was illegal.
The Appeals Court in Washington DC ruled that Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs were illegal and unconstitutional, noting that only Congress has the power to impose tariffs. The ruling was “a sweeping decision that unequivocally rebukes President Trump’s idea that he can impose tariffs on American consumers on his own,” Neal Katyal, the attorney who argued the case, said on Democracy Now!
Trump says, “We’re going in,” threatening to invade Chicago using, among other forces, the Texas National Guard.
But in California, a federal judge, invoking the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act that bars the use of military in domestic law enforcement, ruled in favor of Gov. Gavin Newsom, finding Trump’s deployment of the California National Guard to the streets of Los Angeles, along with several hundred US Marines, was illegal. Judge Charles Breyer, the brother of retired US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, issued an injunction barring the Trump administration from “deploying, ordering, instructing, training, or using the National Guard currently deployed in California, and any military troops [from] engaging in arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants.”
These are just a few of the recent court cases that have rebuked Trump as he attempts to subvert the US Constitution.
We recently got a personal glimpse into what judicial wins over Trump look like. In the high mountain air of Telluride, Colorado, we had a chance to spend time with E. Jean Carroll, the renowned advice columnist and journalist. She was at the Telluride Film Festival for the premier of the new documentary, Ask E. Jean.
Carroll had a long and storied career as the advice columnist for Elle Magazine, and has published several books. In recent years she became known as one of the most prominent women to accuse Donald Trump of sexual abuse, saying he raped her in the dressing room of the Bergdorf Goodman department store in the mid-1990s, in Manhattan.
The courts are playing a central role in opposing the lawless Trump administration, but the core of the resistance are people.
Carroll sued Trump in civil court, and a jury found him guilty of sexually abusing her. Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote, “Trump did in fact ‘rape’ Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood.” She was awarded a $5 million settlement from Trump. After the verdict, he called her a liar. She then sued for defamation, and won an additional jury award of $83.3 million.
Carroll cut an elegant figure, walking along Telluride’s main avenue with the sweeping Continental Divide as a backdrop. Her film premiered to rave reviews, and, should there remain a film distributor in this country not cowed by threats of lawsuits from Trump, it should be available for viewing by a wide audience. The film highlights the story of one courageous woman refusing to be defined as a victim of Donald Trump, providing inspiration, no doubt, to the hundreds of survivors of Trump’s old friend, the now-dead sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. Many of them spoke this week outside the US Capitol, demanding the full release of the Epstein files. The Trump administration, which controls the files, is resisting.
Behind each lawsuit are impacted people, whether immigrant children pulled from their beds in the middle of the night and thrown on planes, or people standing up in the streets of LA confronting illegally deployed troops, whether sexual abuse survivors banding together, or federal workers fired en masse.
The courts are playing a central role in opposing the lawless Trump administration, but the core of the resistance are people–people at every level organized in opposition, defending democracy.
"If major media outlets succumb to intimidation from the Trump administration, the First Amendment is in serious danger."
Independent U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont on Monday took aim at both President Donald Trump's attempts at "suing the media into submission" and news outlets' willingness to settle such cases and self-censor as "incredibly dangerous" precedents.
In a video posted on social media, Sanders highlighted that CBS News parent company Paramount is in talks with Trump's lawyers to possibly settle a $10 billion lawsuit filed by the president just days before the 2024 election accusing "60 Minutes" of deceptively editing an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee.
Sanders also noted how ABC News agreed last year to pay a $15 million settlement that included a letter of regret after veteran anchor and political commentator George Stephanopoulos said Trump had been found "liable for rape" of writer E. Jean Carroll. A federal jury in Manhattan found Trump civilly liable for sexual abuse and defamation of Carroll, but not rape—even though Caroll testified in graphic detail that Trump raped her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s.
"I regard that as an incredibly dangerous precedent, both of those, ABC and CBS," Sanders said in the video, denouncing "major media outlets succumbing to pressure from the Trump administration."
"People have a right to express their own point of view," Sanders asserted. "Yeah, networks are wrong all of the time. They're wrong about me, wrong about Trump. But if you use the power of government to intimidate networks, they're not going to do the big stories. They're not going to do the investigations. Why should they go out on a limb and tell you something if they're afraid about being sued by the Trump administration?"
The video also notes Trump's lawsuit against pollster J. Ann Selzer, her polling firm Selzer & Company, The Des Moines Register, and the Iowa newspaper's parent company, Gannett, alleging fraud and "brazen election interference" over a November 2 poll showing Harris beating Trump by 3 points in the 2024 election. Trump won Iowa by 13 points.
"If major media outlets succumb to intimidation from the Trump administration, the First Amendment is in serious danger," Sanders stressed. "We need an independent press that reports the truth without fear of retribution."
Major media outlets have also been accused of self-censorship. Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owners of The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, respectively, have come under fire for prohibiting or restricting opinion pieces critical of Trump or supportive of his adversaries.
"If you believe The Washington Post's slogan that 'Democracy Dies in Darkness,' their owner was the first to switch off the light," journalist David Helvarg wrote last month for Common Dreams.
The Nation justice correspondent and columnist Elie Mystal wrote last month that "recent events have shown that Trump does not have to impose a new regime of censorship if the press censors itself first."
"And that, I believe, is what we are witnessing now: a press that gives away its First Amendment rights before Trump takes them away," he continued. "A press that will not speak truth to power if power threatens to kick their owners off a cocktail party list or gum up their operations."
"The debasement of the press will continue until readers and viewers reject the media that would rather lie to them than tell the truth to Trump," Mystal added. "The people who run these publications and news organizations are betting that we won't."
"A jury concluded that $88 million would be enough to deter Trump from further defaming E. Jean Carroll," said one legal observer. "I have my doubts."
A jury in New York City on Friday awarded E. Jean Carroll an $83.3 million judgment to be paid by Donald Trump for defaming her publicly on multiple occasions regarding rape allegations she made against the former president.
The judgment—by a 9-person jury with 7 men and 2 women—included $7.3 million in compensatory damages, $11 million designated for a reputational repair program, and a punitive portion—by far the largest—of $65 million.
As MSNBC reported from just outside the Manhattan courthouse:
According to the New York Times:
The award included $65 million in punitive damages, which the nine-member jury assessed after finding Mr. Trump, 77, had acted maliciously after Ms. Carroll's lawyers pointed to Mr. Trump's persisting in attacks on her, both from the White House and after leaving office.
On a single day recently, Mr. Trump made more than 40 derisive posts about her on his Truth Social website.
A civil jury in May of last year found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and subsequently defaming her, but Friday's ruling was focused on Trump's ongoing defamation that continued even after that judgment. The financial judgement in last year's case was $5 million, but the much larger judgement on Friday could mean real financial pain for Trump.
"A jury concluded that $88 million would be enough to deter Trump from further defaming E. Jean Carroll," said former prosecutor and legal expert Renato Marioti in response to the verdict. "I have my doubts."
"They put a sexual abuse victim in harm's way for views," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. "This was a choice to platform lies about the election and Jan. 6th."
Former President Donald Trump predictably used the megaphone CNN handed him Wednesday night to spew falsehoods about the 2020 election, the January 6 attack, abortion, and E. Jean Carroll, turning the hour-long primetime town hall into what one of the corporate media network's own reporters characterized as a "spectacle of lies."
Many others echoed that assessment, faulting CNN and its chosen host—Kaitlan Collins, a former reporter for the right-wing Daily Caller—for giving Trump a platform to let loose a torrent of egregious claims with minimal and ineffective real-time fact-checking.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was one of the most vocal critics of CNN's decision to hold the town hall, which came a day after a jury found the former president liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll. Unsurprisingly, Trump took the opportunity he was gifted by CNN to mock Carroll—sparking laughter from the live studio audience packed with Republicans.
"CNN should be ashamed of themselves," Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter. "They have lost total control of this 'town hall' to again be manipulated into platforming election disinformation, defenses of Jan. 6th, and a public attack on a sexual abuse victim."
"This falls squarely on CNN. Everyone here saw exactly what was going to happen," the New York Democrat added. "Instead they put a sexual abuse victim in harm's way for views. This was a choice to platform lies about the election and Jan. 6th with no plan but to have their moderator interrupted without consequence."
Trump's team and CNN, which is now under the leadership of Chris Licht, reportedly negotiated over the New Hampshire town hall for weeks. According to Politico, the former president's advisers saw the event "as an opportunity to reach a major national audience" as Trump campaigns for another White House term.
"Sorry, but—as predicted—this was a clear win for Trump," MSNBC's Mehdi Hasan wrote in a column following the nationally televised event. "He felt no pressure and conceded nothing. He was welcomed onto CNN to address an audience of non-Republicans watching at home and an audience of loyal Republicans sitting in that hall in New Hampshire. Win-win."
"When Trump falsely denied he had suggested 'terminating' parts of the Constitution, Collins didn't correct him," Hasan noted. "When Trump falsely claimed Democrats wanted to execute babies, Collins didn't correct him. When Trump falsely claimed he finished building his border wall, Collins tried to correct him—but he just talked over her. And when Trump made a racist remark about Chinatown, Collins said nothing whatsoever. Nor did she defend herself when he called her a 'nasty person.'"
Much of the criticism over the town hall was directed at Licht, CNN's CEO. Last year, shortly after taking the helm, Licht pledged to combat the spread of disinformation on CNN's platforms.
“The analogy I love to use is some people like rain, some people don't like rain. We should give space to that," Licht told CNBC in October. "But we will not have someone who comes on and says it's not raining."
That promise appears laughable in the wake of Wednesday night's debacle. As CNN's own Oliver Darcy wrote in a recap of the town hall: "Trump lied about the 2020 election. He took no responsibility for the January 6 insurrection that those very lies incited. And he mocked E. Jean Carroll's allegations of sexual assault."
"And CNN aired it all," Darcy continued. "On and on it went. It felt like 2016 all over again. It was Trump's unhinged social media feed brought to life on stage."
One on-air CNN personality, speaking anonymously to The Daily Beast's Justin Baragona, said the town hall devolved into "a Trump infomercial."
"It is so bad," the person added. "We're going to get crushed."
One prominent trial attorney called on New York lawmakers to "extend the CRIMINAL statute of limitations for sex crimes so Trump can be criminally prosecuted for the sexual abuse that this civil jury found Trump committed."
A civil jury in New York City on Tuesday found former U.S. President Donald Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming—but not raping—journalist E. Jean Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages.
After two weeks of testimony and just under three hours of deliberation, the six-man, three-woman jury awarded Carroll $2 million in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages for sexual battery, and $1 million in compensatory damages, $1.7 million for reputational repair, and $280,000 in punitive damages for defamation.
Carroll alleged that Trump—a 2024 Republican presidential candidate—raped her in a dressing room of the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Midtown Manhattan in 1996 and then defamed her when he denied the accusation.
In denying the assault, Trump claimed to never have met Carroll, whom he called "mentally sick" and a "whack job" who is "not my type" in "any way, shape, or form."
The Associated Press reports:
The trial revisited the lightning-rod topic of Trump's conduct toward women.
Carroll gave multiple days of frank, occasionally emotional testimony, buttressed by two friends who told jurors she reported the alleged attack to them in the moments and day afterward.
Jurors also heard from Jessica Leeds, a former stockbroker who testified that Trump abruptly groped her against her will on an airplane in the 1970s, and from Natasha Stoynoff, a writer who said Trump forcibly kissed her against her will while she was interviewing him for a 2005 article.
Carroll smiled as the verdict was read and as she walked out of the Manhattan Federal Courthouse on Tuesday.
Trump—who did not appear at the trial—wrote on his Truth social media platform: "I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO THIS WOMAN IS. THIS VERDICT IS A DISGRACE—A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME!"
Joe Tacopina, Trump's attorney, called the verdict "strange" and vowed to appeal.
"Obviously, [Trump is] firm in his belief, as many people are, that he cannot get a fair trial in New York City based on the jury pool, and I think one could argue that's probably an accurate assessment based on what happened today," Tacopina said during a press conference outside the courthouse.
More than two dozen women and a 13-year-old girl have accused Trump of sexual misconduct, including rape and assault.
One month before the 2016 presidential election, a 2005 recording of Trump telling "Access Hollywood" host Billy Bush that "when you're a star," women let you "do anything" to them," including "grab 'em by the pussy" surfaced.
Asked during deposition by Carroll's lawyers if he believes the premise of his "Access Hollywood" comments—that powerful men could sexually assault women with impunity—is true, Trump said: "If you look over the last million years, I guess that's been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately or fortunately."
Trial attorney Lisa Bloom called on the New York Legislature to "extend the CRIMINAL statute of limitations for sex crimes so Trump can be criminally prosecuted for the sexual abuse that this civil jury found Trump committed."
Last May, Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the Adult Survivors Act, allowing survivors of sexual assault that occurred when they were older than 18 to sue their abusers—regardless of when the abuse occurred—during a one-year period.
Tuesday's verdict comes just over a month after Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts involving alleged hush money payments during the 2016 election in bids to cover up sex scandals, including $130,000 given to porn star Stormy Daniels and $30,000 payment to a former Trump Tower doorman who claimed to have a story about a child Trump had out of wedlock.
Rights defenders welcomed the jury's verdict.
"We are grateful to E. Jean Carroll for sharing her truth. We are in solidarity with her and survivors of sexual violence," UltraViolet tweeted.
"We know that sexual violence and rape culture is all around us, often perpetuated or carried out by those in positions of power. E. Jean Carroll is one of over 20 women who have come forward with stories of sexual assault by Donald Trump," the group added.
UltraViolet called on CNN to cancel a planned Trump town hall.
"When media outlets like CNN give Trump a platform, they do a disservice to all their viewers," the group wrote. "Contrary to the network's excuses, hosting a town hall with Trump isn't about hearing 'both sides.' It's a brazen ploy to seize ratings."
The millions of sexual assault survivors deserve our respect, support, and empathy, but never our pity.
The E. Jean Carroll vs. Donald Trump rape trial is, no doubt, eliciting a lot of understandable reactions in sexual assault survivors.* I'm a psychotherapist who, for years, has been privileged to work with many survivors. I used to consult to a rape crisis center. I don't need to hear one word of a trauma story to do trauma work, but I've heard countless stories. Stories of hope, of shame, of fear, of anger, of grief and betrayal. Stories of atrocious violence. Stories of glorious resilience.
I've watched police be respectful and kind to someone as they're reporting their assault. I've also seen police be dismissive and blaming and horrible, forcing a person, often still in what is colloquially known as shock, to prove that the "encounter" was not consensual or that she was no somehow "asking for it." I've witnessed people become "disgusted" with their partners who were assaulted, and so they leave or divorce such "damaged goods." I've heard how friends no longer know how to talk to a person, treating them like they're fragile beyond measure or as if they're contagious and if you get too close then you'll somehow become infected. I've known employers who fired their employees because they didn't have a "legitimate" reason for taking time off from work to process and integrate such a fragmenting experience. I've heard how people have been excommunicated from previously close-knit families or neighborhoods because they dared to name that an uncle or a brother or a woman down the street was their perpetrator. There have been beautiful stories of solidarity and support, too. But all too often, contending with the shaming, cruel reactions from others adds very real trauma on top of trauma.
On the stand, E. Jean Carroll talked about what happened after she publicly accused Trump: "Oh. My God. The force of hatred coming at me was staggering."
Even more trauma comes from being judged for what one did during the assault or right afterward. "Why didn't they run?" "Why didn't he fight?" "How could she possibly laugh??" Those questions all belie a total and complete ignorance of the mechanisms of trauma and millennia of nervous system evolution. Our survival strategies kick in, and, more often than not, we don't have time for conscious decision making; it just happens. In a split second, our nervous systems assess the threat and take the best course of action available. (This is why we don't take a moment to think through the pros and cons of, say, jumping out of the way of an oncoming car, or we'd be toast. We just automatically do it.)
Sometimes we're able to run away when someone tries to sexually assault us. Sometimes we can fight or scream, but often that isn't the best survival strategy because that can escalate life threatening violence and retaliation. And so, it's a really bad idea. Or maybe it's so ingrained in us to be a "good girl" that screaming doesn't even occur to us, especially if the assailant is someone we know, which is most often the case.
Much less talked about are the survival responses of compliance and appeasement. Those have saved many a life, and thank God for that. I hope all of us have access to those survival strategies, if needed. To judge those last two as "weak," or decide a survivor is partly to blame because they were compliant or appeasing, or to insist you'd do [fill in the blank] were someone sexually assaulting you, is preposterous. Maybe you would and maybe you wouldn't. Again, our nervous systems automatically kick into gear and do what they have to do to survive: fight, flee, comply, appease, or even all-but collapse or "play dead." In this instance, you might totally check out, go passive and limp to get through it. And so, you barely remember what happened, cognitively, but somatically you sure as hell know. Again, hooray that our nervous systems have that survival strategy available, too!
Then there's what happens right afterward. You might not go to the police (especially if you're part of a group that has historically been oppressed by them). You might not call a rape crisis center or a friend. Maybe you laugh uncontrollably, disoriented, incredulous at the surreal thing that just happened. People anxiously or disconnectedly laugh at horrible things that have happened to them. I see it all the time in my practice. Maybe you go back to a party, ignoring for the moment what just happened. Maybe you go shopping for dinner. "Everything's cool. Yup, all normal. Just fine." Maybe you pick a huge, screaming fight with your partner in an unconscious effort to fend off the feelings of vulnerability. None of that is "weird" or unexplainable. You're in shock. Your nervous system hasn't had near enough time to integrate or process what just happened. You're on auto pilot. You might do things that seem to make no sense. But they do if you understand trauma.
Given all these layers and sequelae of trauma, I get why many survivors never come forward. It's a big risk. Once your story is out there, it's out there. Even supportive people tend to look at you through the filter of: The One Who Was Raped. On the stand, E. Jean Carroll talked about what happened after she publicly accused Trump: "Oh. My God. The force of hatred coming at me was staggering." That onslaught is, again, more trauma on top of trauma. So is, potentially, Trump's lead counsel Joe Tacopina's line of questioning about Carroll not screaming as she was being sexually assaulted. "He raped me, whether I screamed or not. I don't need any excuse for not screaming."
Indeed, she doesn't. I can't say this too many times: Wondering or questioning why Carroll didn't scream or run or why she laughed or soon went back to work shows a total ignorance of trauma and how nervous systems work. We can't override evolution as much as we might try. Full stop. I get that in a courtroom you need a jury to believe you, but generally you don't need to justify anything to anyone. If people don't believe you, that's about them. And their ignorance or fear or discomfort.
As Carroll has, many do come forward years or decades later. Again, the accusatory cries of, "Why didn't she come forward earlier?" are absolutely uninformed. Maybe that's the time your nervous system needed to work through the trauma be it via trauma-informed therapy or self-exploration or gardening; or maybe the perpetrator finally moved or died; or maybe enough time has passed where your family is able to be supportive and not abandon you for calling out your uncle; or maybe enough is enough and you just can't stay silent a day longer. Many finally felt the validation and the safety in numbers of the #MeToo movement that allowed them to come forward. All the doubting questions ignore that in 2023 we still live in a patriarchal culture. It's a culture that continues to judge and shame and doubt and blame women for their sexual assault, or those questions would never be asked in the first place. And when other genders get assaulted, that comes with its own kind of judgment. And if you're a person of color, add another layer on top of that.
It can take a huge amount of bravery and fortitude just to get up and face a run-of-the-mill day after such a disorienting, devastating experience that robs one of a sense of safety no matter where you are because your body is the scene of the crime. Confronting a perpetrator requires its own kind of bravery. I can't pretend to imagine what it must be like to do it on the national stage.**
E. Jean Carroll and the millions of sexual assault survivors deserve our respect and support. They deserve our empathy, but never our pity. To all the sexual assault survivors out there, I see you. I believe you. And even if at times it feels all-but impossible to access, know that you're resilient beyond measure.
*If you're triggered and need support and/or resources, call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1.800.656.HOPE (4673); or go to www.rainn.org.
**If you're a survivor, please hear this loud and clear: You are NO less brave if you don't confront your perpetrator. That is a deeply personal decision and sometimes it's the very best, smartest, and most strategic and self-caring decision to never, ever call out your assailant. Trust that.
Trump's attempt to "secure or perpetuate incumbency" did not fall in the perimeters of his official duties, the Biden administration said.
The U.S. Department of Justice said Thursday that there are limits to a president's immunity from lawsuits filed over their performing of official duties—namely, that immunity does not extend to allegations that former President Donald Trump incited violence leading up to the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The DOJ has typically backed Trump's claim that he is immune from civil lawsuits based on his "speech on matters of public concern," but government lawyers said that claims from 11 lawmakers and two Capitol Police officers regarding the danger they were placed in during the riot should be able to move forward in court without running up against that immunity.
Trump has attempted to fight those lawsuits with "only a single, categorical argument: A president is always immune from any civil suits based on his 'speech on matters of public concern'... even if that speech also constitutes incitement to imminent private violence," said the DOJ.
"The United States respectfully submits that the court should reject that categorical argument," continued the government.
Trump has appealed a lower court ruling that rejected his claim of immunity, with the court arguing that the former president's attempt to "secure or perpetuate incumbency" by inciting his supporters to try to stop the certification of the 2020 election was not part of his official duties as president.
In the case of January 6, the department said, "such incitement of imminent private violence would not be within the outer perimeter of the office of the president of the United States."
In a hearing before the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in December, Trump attorney Jesse Binnall claimed presidential immunity should apply to the January 6 case because Trump was using the "bully pulpit" when he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, where they then breached the building.
Binnall said Trump couldn't be sued even if he told his followers to "burn Congress down."
The DOJ noted that it was not taking a position "regarding the potential criminal liability of any person for the events of January 6, 2021," including Trump.
Antonio Arellano, vice president of communications for NextGen America, expressed hope that the department's view on Trump's immunity will bring him closer to facing accountability for his actions on January 6.
"Trump must face justice," he said.
A federal judge on Tuesday denied a Justice Department motion to take over President Donald Trump's legal defense in the defamation lawsuit of E. Jean Carroll, who accused the president of raping her in the 1990s.
"When Donald Trump called me a liar and denied that he had ever met me, he was not speaking on behalf of the United States. I am happy that Judge Kaplan recognized these basic truths."
--E. Jean Carroll
In a highly unusual move, the DOJ had tried to intervene in the case of Carroll, a journalist who last June joined the over two dozen women who have now accused Trump of assault, molestation, or harassment. Had it been successful, the DOJ would have substituted itself as the defendant in the case, and since the federal government cannot be sued for defamation, the suit would have been effectively terminated.
However, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan denied the government's motion, arguing in a 61-page ruling (pdf) that Trump "is not an 'employee of the Government,' as Congress defined that term," and that the DOJ's assertion that the defamation suit is against the United States is invalid.
"The undisputed facts demonstrate that President Trump was not acting in furtherance of any duties owed to any arguable employer when he made the statements at issue," wrote Kaplan. "His comments concerned an alleged sexual assault that took place several decades before he took office, and the allegations have no relationship to the official business of the United States."
"To conclude otherwise would require the court to adopt a view that virtually everything the president does is within the public interest by virtue of his office," Kaplan asserted.
"No one even arguably directed or controlled President Trump when he commented on the plaintiff's accusation, which had nothing to do with the official business of government, that he raped her decades before he took office," Kaplan added.
Kaplan's opinion allows Carroll to proceed with her suit against the president. Roberta Kaplan, Carroll's attorney, welcomed the judge's ruling.
"The simple truth is that President Trump defamed our client because she was brave enough to reveal that he had sexually assaulted her, and that brutal, personal attack cannot be attributed to the office of the president," the attorney for Carroll said in a statement on Tuesday.
Carroll also celebrated the decision, saying in a statement that "when Donald Trump called me a liar and denied that he had ever met me, he was not speaking on behalf of the United States. I am happy that Judge Kaplan recognized these basic truths."
Last June, Carroll claimed Trump raped her in a dressing room of a Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan in 1995 or 1996. Trump responded to the accusation by denying he had ever met Carroll, and saying that she wasn't his "type."
"She is trying to sell a new book that should indicate her motivation," Trump said of his accuser. "It should be sold in the fiction section."
Carroll then sued Trump last November, arguing that his denials amounted to libel because of the damage they caused her reputation. In August a New York state court ruled the suit could proceed, which led to the DOJ's attempt to substitute itself for Trump going forward.
To date, at least 26 women have accused Trump--who infamously boasted of sexually assaulting women with impunity in a recording released a month before the 2016 election--of sexual assault or harrassment.
In Attorney General Bill Barr's latest attempt to help President Donald Trump avoid accountability for an alleged rape he is accused of committing in the 1990s, Barr on Monday argued in court filings that when the president denied columnist E. Jean Carroll's accusation last year, he was acting not on behalf of his own interests but in his capacity as a public servant representing the people of the United States.
"Given the president's position in our constitutional structure, his role in communicating with the public is especially significant," wrote Justice Department lawyers, who last month at Barr's direction replaced Trump's personal legal team to represent the president in the case, in a highly unusual move. "The president's statements fall within the scope of his employment for multiple reasons."
The statements the government lawyers were referring to include Trump's claim that Carroll was "not [his] type," that he had never met her despite photographic evidence to the contrary, and that she was a liar who was trying to sell books by accusing him of raping her in a department store more than two decades ago, long before Trump's political career began.
"There is not a single person in the United States--not the president and not anyone else--whose job description includes slandering women they sexually assaulted," Carroll's attorneys wrote in response to the DOJ's claim on Monday.
Carroll, who sued Trump for defamation in a New York state court following his remarks, tweeted that she and her legal team are planning to argue in court that Trump's denial was "not an official act."
The DOJ lawyers' claim comes a month after Barr intervened in Carroll's case against Trump, both by replacing the president's legal representation and by attempting to transfer the lawsuit from the state court to a federal district court. Both moves suggest the DOJ aims to have the case treated as one that was filed against a government employee who is immune from defamation lawsuits, in order to have Carroll's case dismissed.
Former federal prosecutor and NBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner tweeted that Barr's latest action goes against the department's responsibility to work "on behalf of victims."
"Bill Barr is trying to use the DOJ to crush a victim," Kirschner said.
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden last week criticized the president for using the DOJ as his "own law firm" to gain the upper hand in his legal troubles.
"'I'm being sued because a woman's accusing me of rape. Represent me. Represent me,'" Mr. Biden said in imitation of the president. "What's that all about?"
Democratic lawmakers and legal experts accused Attorney General William Barr of unethically acting as President Donald Trump's "personal henchman" after the Justice Department on Tuesday moved to take over the president's defense team in a defamation case brought by journalist and author E. Jean Carroll, who has accused Trump of raping her in the 1990s.
"Today's actions demonstrate that Trump will do everything possible to block discovery from going forward in my case before the upcoming election to try to prevent a jury from ever deciding which one of us is lying."
--E. Jean Carroll
In a claim that baffled and alarmed observers, Justice Department lawyers said in new court filings that the federal government's intervention in the case is justified because Trump was acting in "within the scope" of his official capacity as president when he accused Carroll of lying about the rape.
Robbie Kaplan, Carroll's attorney, called the Justice Department's argument "shocking" in a statement late Tuesday, saying it "offends me as a lawyer, and offends me even more as a citizen."
As a result of a court decision last month, Kaplan noted, "Trump was soon going to be required to produce documents, provide a DNA sample, and sit for a deposition."
"Realizing that there was no valid basis to appeal that decision in New York courts, on the very day that he would have been required to appeal, Trump instead enlisted the U.S. Department of Justice to replace his private lawyers," Kaplan continued. "Trump's effort to wield the power of the U.S. government to evade responsibility for his private misconduct is without precedent, and shows even more starkly how far he is willing to go to prevent the truth from coming out."
Carroll echoed her lawyer in a statement of her own on Tuesday, saying, "Today's actions demonstrate that Trump will do everything possible, including using the full powers of the federal government, to block discovery from going forward in my case before the upcoming election to try to prevent a jury from ever deciding which one of us is lying."
The Justice Department cited the Federal Tort Claims Act in its push to replace Trump's private defense team with government lawyers and move the defamation lawsuit, filed last November, from state to federal court.
"Though the law gives employees of the federal government immunity from most defamation lawsuits," the New York Times reported, "legal experts said it has rarely, if ever, been used before to protect a president, especially for actions taken before he entered office."
Heidi Li Feldman, professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, wrote in a series of tweets late Tuesday that "by putting the DOJ to work defending him over conduct that has nothing to do with his official capacity, Trump has taken another giant step toward full-blown authoritarianism."
"Nothing in the official capacity of the presidency required Donald Trump to slur E. Jean Carroll. He may have thereby defamed her," Feldman added. "It is his personal responsibility to defend the suit, not the work of the U.S. government."
By converting the DoJ to a private law firm serving his unofficial legal interests, Trump again shows that he has no understanding of the office of the president in our constitutional democracy. 3/
-- Heidi Li Feldman (@HeidiLiFeldman) September 9, 2020
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called the Justice Department's intervention "outrageous and outright unacceptable."
"The Justice Department should serve the people, not a president," said Jayapal. "Yet Bill Barr continues to act not as the attorney general for the American people but as the personal henchman for Donald Trump."
Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the date of a recent court ruling in E. Jean Carroll's case.