Skip to content

Republish This Story

* Please read before republishing *

We’re happy to make this story available to republish for free under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives Creative Commons license as long as you follow our republishing guidelines, which require that you credit The 19th and retain our pixel. See our full guidelines for more information.

To republish, simply copy the HTML at right, which includes our tracking pixel, all paragraph styles and hyperlinks, the author byline and credit to The 19th. Have questions? Please email [email protected].

— The Editors

Loading...

Modal Gallery

/

Menu

  • Our Mission
  • Our Team
  • Latest Stories
  • Upcoming Events
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
  • Donate
  • Work With Us
  • Fellowships
    • From the Collection

      Changing Child Care

      Illustration of a woman feeding a baby a bottle
      • As climate change worsens hurricane season in Louisiana, doulas are ensuring parents can safely feed their babies

        Jessica Kutz · May 5
      • Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito argued abortion isn’t an economic issue. But is that true?

        Chabeli Carrazana · May 4
      • Pregnant people are at 'greater risk' in states hit hard by wildfire smoke, air pollution, new report shows

        Jessica Kutz · April 20
    • From the Collection

      Next-Gen GOP

      Illustration of a woman riding an elephant
      • Mayra Flores’ victory set a record for women in Congress. It also reflects the growing visibility of Republican Latinas

        Candice Norwood · June 21
      • A banner year for Republican women

        Amanda Becker · November 11
      • Republican women could double representation in the U.S. House

        Amanda Becker · November 4
    • From the Collection

      On The Rise

      Illustration of three women marching
      • Biden’s new environmental justice office aims to tackle the health impacts disproportionately faced by people of color

        Jessica Kutz · June 2
      • Jessica Cisneros takes on the last anti-abortion U.S. House Democrat

        Amanda Becker · February 25
      • Meet J. Michelle Childs, South Carolina judge and possible Supreme Court contender

        Candice Norwood · February 18
    • From the Collection

      Pandemic Within a Pandemic

      Illustration of four people marching for Black Lives Matter with coronavirus as the backdrop
      • Some LGBTQ+ people worry that the COVID-19 vaccine will affect HIV medication. It won’t.

        Orion Rummler · November 23
      • Why are more men dying from COVID? It’s a complicated story of nature vs. nurture, researchers say

        Mariel Padilla · September 22
      • Few incarcerated women were released during COVID. The ones who remain have struggled.

        Candice Norwood · August 17
    • From the Collection

      Portraits of a Pandemic

      Illustration of a woman wearing a mask and holding up the coronavirus
      • For family caregivers, COVID is a mental health crisis in the making

        Shefali Luthra · October 8
      • A new database tracks COVID-19’s effects on sex and gender

        Shefali Luthra · September 15
      • Pregnant in a pandemic: The 'perfect storm for a crisis'

        Shefali Luthra · August 25
    • From the Collection

      The 19th Explains

      People walking from many articles to one article where they can get the context they need on an issue.
      • The 19th Explains: How pregnant people can prepare for a summer of heat waves

        Jessica Kutz · June 17
      • The 19th Explains: How new Title IX guidelines on sexual misconduct may give more help to survivors

        Nadra Nittle · June 14
      • The 19th Explains: How would overturning Roe v. Wade affect IVF?

        Jennifer Gerson · May 27
    • From the Collection

      The Electability Myth

      Illustration of three women speaking at podiums
      • Mayra Flores’ victory set a record for women in Congress. It also reflects the growing visibility of Republican Latinas

        Candice Norwood · June 21
      • Stepping in after tragedy: How political wives became widow lawmakers

        Mariel Padilla · May 24
      • Do term limits help women candidates? New York could be a new testing ground

        Barbara Rodriguez · January 11
    • From the Collection

      The Impact of Aging

      A number of older people walking down a path of information.
      • 'I'm planning on working until the day I die': Older women voters are worried about the future

        Mariel Padilla · June 3
      • Climate change is forcing care workers to act as first responders

        Jessica Kutz · May 31
      • Woman alleges that an assisted living facility denied her admission because she is transgender

        Sara Luterman · November 8
    • From the Collection

      Voting Rights

      A series of hands reaching for ballots.
      • Florida’s redistricting fight continues. The head of the state League of Women Voters talks about what’s at stake.

        Barbara Rodriguez · April 19
      • Women have been sounding the alarm ahead of Texas’ first-in-the-nation primary

        Barbara Rodriguez · February 28
      • LGBTQ+ people of color are at risk from rising voter restrictions as federal protections falter in the Senate, advocates say

        Orion Rummler · January 19

    View all collections

  • Explore by Topic

    • Abortion
    • Business & Economy
    • Caregiving
    • Coronavirus
    • Education
    • Election 2020
    • Elections 2022
    • Environment & Climate
    • Health
    • Immigration
    • Inside The 19th
    • Justice
    • LGBTQ+
    • Politics
    • Race
    • Sports
    • Technology

    View All Topics

Home
  • Our Mission
  • Our Team
  • Latest Stories
  • Upcoming Events
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
  • Donate
  • Work With Us
  • Fellowships

We’re an independent, nonprofit newsroom reporting on gender, politics and policy. Read our story.

Support The 19th

As a nonprofit newsroom, members are critical to our sustainability. Your financial support helps make our journalism possible.

Become a Member

Donate to support our mission

The 19th thanks our sponsors. Become one.

E Jean Carroll being interviewed by media.
E. Jean Carroll, right, talks to reporters outside a courthouse in New York on March 4. Lawyers for Carroll, who has accused President Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s, told a court that Trump is trying “to stop the truth from ever coming out” by attempting to delay her defamation lawsuit and her effort to get his DNA. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Politics

If the Justice Department intervenes for Trump in his defamation lawsuit, the case would ‘just end there’

Constitutional law expert Leah Litman explains the latest twist in E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit against the president. 

Amanda Becker

Washington Correspondent

Amanda Becker portrait

Published

2020-09-09 17:20
5:20
September 9, 2020
pm

Share

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email

E. Jean Carroll is one of more than a dozen women who have accused President Donald Trump of sexual assault. Now, the U.S. Department of Justice is arguing that it should defend the president in a related defamation case.

Carroll, an author and longtime columnist for Elle, alleged the president raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s, an account she detailed in a book excerpt published by New York magazine last year. 

Trump has denied Carroll’s underlying allegation of sexual assault. Carroll sued Trump for defamation in November after the president told a Capitol Hill newspaper that he could not have raped her because they had never met and, in addition, that she was “not my type.” 

The 19th thanks our sponsors. Become one.

The Justice Department on Tuesday moved to intervene in Carroll’s civil lawsuit, arguing the case should be moved to federal court, where government lawyers would handle the case, taking over for Trump’s private legal team.

The 19th spoke to Leah Litman, a law professor and constitutional law expert at the University of Michigan, about what this means and what could come next in the case.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. 

The New York Times reported that the Department of Justice has intervened in the defamation lawsuit Carroll brought against Trump. What does this mean?

Under federal law — the Federal Tort Claims Act — when a federal official or employee commits a tort [civil, or non-criminal wrongdoing] in the course of their official duties, then the United States will substitute itself as the proper defendant in a lawsuit against the employee. What the Department of Justice did is file a sheet of paper that says E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit for defamation against President Trump should proceed against the United States as defendant, rather than Donald Trump, because, when Donald Trump said the statements that he did — including that she’s not his type — he was acting within the scope of his employment as president of the United States. 

From a strategy standpoint, why would Trump’s private legal team want the case handled by Justice Department lawyers?

In a lot of tort cases, it’s actually a good thing for plaintiffs, because it provides you a defendant who could pay any judgment against you. Some federal officials don’t actually have the resources to pay a judgment for money damages. But in this case, substituting the United States as defendants for Donald Trump would end the lawsuit entirely because the United States is a government, rather than a person, and governments must consent to being sued. The United States has not consented to being sued for intentional torts, including defamation. If the Department of Justice successfully convinces the court to substitute the United States as a defendant for Donald Trump, the suit would be dismissed, and it would just end there.

What if the Justice Department is not allowed to intervene in the case and it remains a civil defamation lawsuit in state court? 

Even if they lose, they successfully delay the evidence collection in the case, probably until after the election. The case was scheduled to proceed to the next phase of discovery because the courts have rejected Trump’s personal lawyers’ argument that he was entitled to immunity and couldn’t be sued while he was in office. So the next stage of litigation would have involved DNA tests on him and deposing him as a witness, and they get to delay all that while they litigate in federal court whether this falls within the scope of his official duties. 

A newsletter you can relate to

Storytelling that represents you, delivered to your inbox.

You have been subscribed!

Submitting…

Uh-oh! Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Does the Justice Department often intervene in defamation cases?

Most defamation cases against federal employees arise in what most people think of as workplace defamation situations, so a workplace supervisor or colleague says something about one of their coworkers either in a job reference or in the workplace. And in those cases, it’s pretty clear that the federal officer is acting in the scope of their employment as an employer or employee. There are a few cases where courts have said federal officers are acting within the course of their official duties or within the scope of their employment when they provide public-facing comments. But those public-facing comments either concern events that happen while the office holder was in office … or the comments concern national advocacy organizations or issue groups or issues that are the subjects of legislation. 

Is the Justice Department’s move to intervene in this case typical? Atypical?

What’s typical about this is that when people sue federal officials or employees, often the United States will be substituted as a defendant. But that’s because federal officials or employees are typically sued for things that happened during the course of their employment. This is very atypical in that it is the president, rather than just any other federal official. And there just aren’t many cases involving circumstances where the United States tried to insert itself as a defendant for the president for conduct that occurred before the president was in office. It involves stuff that happened well before the president took office and completely unrelated to any of his official duties whatsoever. 

What’s next?

The federal court will decide whether the president was acting in the course of his official duties when he made these comments. 

Share

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email

Support The 19th

As a nonprofit newsroom, members are critical to our sustainability. Your financial support helps make our journalism possible.

Become a Member

Donate to support our mission

Up Next

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, in a red blazer, arriving for a meeting on Capitol Hill in 2020.

Politics

Landscape for women U.S. Congress candidates changed little by New Hampshire and Rhode Island primaries

Rhode Island is the only state in 2020 to have no women candidates, while in New Hampshire, two incumbents move ahead. 

Read the Story

The 19th
The 19th is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. Our stories are free to republish in accordance with these guidelines.

  • Donate
  • Subscribe to the Newsletter
  • Attend an Event
  • Jobs
  • Fellowships
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Community Guidelines
  • Membership
  • Membership FAQ
  • Major Gifts
  • Sponsorship
  • Privacy
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram