On Tuesday, March 2nd, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered a district judge to review the defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll against former President Donald Trump. The case stems from allegations made by Carroll in her book, “What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal,” in which she accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s.
In response to Carroll’s allegations, Trump denied ever meeting her and claimed that she was lying to sell books. He also went on to say that Carroll was “not my type” and that he had never even heard of her before the book’s release. Carroll then filed a defamation lawsuit against Trump, arguing that his statements had damaged her reputation and caused her emotional distress.
The case was initially dismissed by a district judge in 2020, who ruled that Trump’s comments were made in his official capacity as President and therefore fell under the protection of the Federal Tort Claims Act. However, the appeals court has now overturned that decision, stating that Trump’s comments were not made in the scope of his employment and therefore do not qualify for immunity.
The appeals court’s decision is a significant victory for Carroll and could potentially lead to a trial in which she would have the opportunity to present evidence supporting her allegations against Trump. It also sets an important precedent for future cases involving defamation by public officials, as it clarifies that such statements are not automatically protected by the Federal Tort Claims Act.
However, it is important to note that this decision does not necessarily mean that Carroll will win her case against Trump. She will still need to prove that his statements were false and that they caused her harm. Additionally, Trump’s legal team could potentially appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
Overall, the appeals court’s decision is a step forward for E. Jean Carroll and for victims of sexual assault who seek justice through the legal system. It reaffirms the importance of holding public officials accountable for their actions and words, and it sends a message that defamatory statements will not be tolerated, even if they come from the highest levels of government.
