Judge: Trump Denying He Raped Someone Was Not Part Of His Official President's Duties
from the so-there's-that dept
Last month we wrote about an absolutely ridiculous situation in which the DOJ sought to insert itself into the long-running defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll against Donald Trump. As we noted, Carroll's defamation claims seem fairly weak. They're part of a pattern of somewhat sketchy defamation claims in which someone accuses someone of something awful, and then the accused person denies it -- and the accuser says the denial is defamation.
In this case, Carroll claims that Trump sexually assaulted her years ago. Trump denied even knowing her. She sued for defamation. Again, the case seems pretty weak and I think Trump has a decent chance of winning. However, despite trying, Trump and his personal lawyers failed to stop the discovery process, in which she's seeking a sample of his DNA as part of proving her case. At that point, the DOJ stepped in, citing the Westfall Act, which requires the DOJ to step in and take over cases if the Attorney General "certifies" that the actions being sued over were done by a federal employee while "acting within the scope of his office or employment." And the key bit here: because of sovereign immunity, you cannot sue the federal government for defamation. So if the court allowed the DOJ to step in, in place of the President, the case would then need to be dismissed immediately.
And, thus, the argument the DOJ made was that Trump denied sexually assaulting Carroll... as part of his job as President of the US. As we pointed out in our original post, there were all sorts of reasons why this was ridiculous. Ken White did point out that there are some rulings on the books saying that politicians answering questions from the press about their personal lives is part of their job description, and thus it was possible that a judge might actually side with the DOJ.
However, the judge did not do that at all. In a 61 page, very detailed ruling, Judge Lewis Kaplan (last seen here berating copyright troll Richard Liebowitz) rejected basically every last bit of the DOJ's argument. He did so on two key grounds. There was the reason that lots of us expected: that denying you sexually assaulted someone is not part of the job of being President:
A comment about government action, public policy, or even an election is categorically different than a comment about an alleged sexual assault that took place roughly twenty years before the president took office. And the public’s reasons for being interested in these comments are different as well. The president’s views on the former topics are interesting because they alert the public about what the government is up to. President Trump’s views on the plaintiff’s sexual assault allegation may be interesting to some, but they reveal nothing about the operation of government.
Separately, Judge Kaplan notes that the DOJ messed up its filing and left the strongest argument it had out of the initial filing and only put it in the reply brief. That's a no-no. You have to include all your arguments upfront.
The government’s best argument on this point is that President Trump’s statements about Ms. Carroll were within the scope of his employment in that refuting her accusation furthered his ability to govern effectively because the accusation was reported widely and charged him with the commission of a serious crime. But there are at least three answers to that objection.
As an initial matter, the government first made the argument in its reply brief, thereby foreclosing the plaintiff from responding to it. As previously discussed, it thereby waived the argument as its counsel agreed in open court, as previously discussed.
Second, the Court would reject the argument even if it were not waived. While the government’s position is not entirely without merit, it goes much too far. Accepting it would mean that a president is free defame anyone who criticizes his conduct or impugns his character – without adverse consequences to that president and no matter what injury he inflicts on the person defamed. Indeed, the same would be true for many government officials, who plausibly could argue that criticism of their behavior or character, even if completely unrelated to their government employment, would undermine their ability to perform effectively while in office.
Perhaps more surprising, though, is that Judge Kaplan argued that the Westfall Act doesn't even apply to the President because the President does not qualify as a federal employee under the Act. I wasn't expecting that, and it sounds a bit counterintuitive, but the court makes a surprisingly compelling argument:
The president is a constitutional officer. He occupies the highest office in our nation, which is created by Article II of the Constitution. But that is not what Section 2671 requires. It speaks only of “officers . . . of any federal agency,” not officers of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution. So we turn to the question whether the president is an officer “of any federal agency” within the meaning of Section 2671. As noted above, Section 2671 states that the term “federal agency” “includes the executive departments, the judicial and legislative branches, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the United States.”
At the outset, it is apparent that this definition does not include the entire executive branch. Although Congress referred to “the executive departments,” the fact that the phrase is plural makes clear that Congress did not mean “the executive branch.” Congress knew how to refer to an entire branch of government, as evidenced by the fact that the very next words of the statute are “the judicial and legislative branches.” The plain meaning of this language is that members of Congress, federal judges, and the staffs of both all are included in the term “federal agency.” But the entire executive branch is not. Only those parts of the executive branch that fall within the other terms of the definition are included.
The argument goes on for a few pages and then notes:
Because the president is at the apex of the executive branch, many think of him, in a colloquial sense, as the “head” of many federal departments, agencies, and organizations. At the very least, one might imagine that he leads some agency at the core of the executive branch. The government has not attempted to identify any such agency in its papers, but the two most obvious candidates are the Executive Office of the President (“EOP”) and the president’s cabinet. But neither entity fits the bill. The head of the EOP, which is a network of agencies, is the president’s chief of staff. And even if one were to call the cabinet an “executive department” or “independent establishment” – a dubious contention – the president himself is not a member of the cabinet, although the vice president is.
Indeed, the basic civics lessons on the White House’s website draw a clear distinction between “the executive branch,” “the executive departments,” and “federal agencies.” Its page on “The Executive Branch” states that the Constitution vests in the president “[t]he power of the Executive Branch” and that “[f]ifteen executive departments – each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet – carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government.” It states also that the “executive departments” “are joined in this [effort] by other executive agencies such as the [Central Intelligence Agency] and Environmental Protection Agency, the heads of which are not part of the Cabinet, but who are under full authority of the President.”
There's a lot more on this, but the key point that is made is that the Westfall Act was responding to a specific Supreme Court case about federal employees. But there was another case that predated that, regarding Richard Nixon, noting that the President already has immunity from lawsuits regarding official acts. In other words, Congress had no reason to make the Westfall Act cover the President because the President was already immune from lawsuits over official acts.
In 1982, the Supreme Court decided in Nixon v. Fitzgerald67 that the president “is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.” So when the Supreme Court decided Westfall just six years later and held that “federal officials are not absolutely immune from state-law tort liability for all actions committed within the outer perimeter of their duties,” it clearly was not referring to the president. When Westfall referred generally to “federal officials,” it merely expanded the potential amenability to suit and liability of that more limited group of individuals.
Congress was well aware of this background when it passed the Westfall Act. As the Supreme Court later wrote, “[w]hen Congress wrote the Westfall Act, which covers federal employees generally . . . , the legislators had one purpose firmly in mind.” That purpose was “to ‘return Federal employees to the status they held prior to the Westfall decision.’” There was no need to extend the protections of the Westfall Act to the president, whom the Supreme Court evidently recognized was not a “federal employee,” for the very good reason that the president already had “absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts” by virtue of Nixon v. Fitzgerald.
Unless one ignores Nixon, it is impossible to read Westfall as applying to the president. Given that the “one purpose” of the Westfall Act was to “return Federal employees to the status they held prior to the Westfall decision,” Congress presumptively was aware that neither Section 2671 nor the FTCA applied to the president. It therefore had no reason to extend the Westfall Act to that office.
And, since denying sexual assault is not part of his official job, none of this matters anyway. The President is not able to sidestep the lawsuit. Well, yet. We'll see what sort of appeals happen. Or what happens if Trump is no longer President in the near future...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: defamation, doj, donald trump, e. jean carroll, immunity, lewis kaplan, sovereign immunity, westfall act
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
the basic civics lessons on the White House’s website
Website purging in 3.....2...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Clank' went the bear-trap
Probably the funniest part of this is that it was Trump's own big mouth that screwed him over the most. If he'd simply denied the claims then it would have been on the one suing to bring in the evidence, and given the time involved that could have been problematic, but by going several steps past that to claim that he'd never even met the woman he opened himself up having that proved wrong via the requested DNA testing, which would bring into question his denial, and he really has no-one to blame but himself for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Clank' went the bear-trap
That wasn't the case for Bill Cosby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Clank' went the bear-trap
"That wasn't the case for Bill Cosby."
Cosby was an eager and persistent type of abuser who had to fend off the allegations of dozens of women, similar to Weinstein, many of whom pleaded a case with a great deal of circumstantial evidence and surrounding testimony.
Trump, however, could have laughed this out of court. Except that when he told a manifest lie about the things where they held actual evidence to the contrary it suddenly turned into a different ball game.
It's never a good look when the very first thing you tell the judge is an obvious lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why I never get a rub and tug. DNA stands for Does Not Acquit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I bet that DOJ could turn right around and argue that raping someone is part of his presidential duties, if it were ever close to being proven he'd done the thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But, according to the part above that you didn't read, he wasn't president at that time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“I was thinking about becoming president. That counts, right?” — Trump, to Bill Barr, probably
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is a term for retroactive immunity of that kind. It's called a pardon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you think the Dem's will go nuts
If the president decides to classify his tax returns, business documents, and all of his tweets, do you think there would be enough courtrooms to handle all of the federal charges? This would work because the president is the ultimate classification authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Judge: Trump Denying He Raped Someone Was Not Part Of His Official President's Duties"
Huh, I seem to remember another President being grilled by Congress about whether consensual sex interfered with his official duties, as if that was the most important possible issue at the time. I wonder what's changed here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess that depends on what the meaning of the word “changed” is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I wonder what's changed here?"
Three things;
That former president was at least a generally likeable crook who was a democrat. The current one is a thoroughly unlikable crook who is a republican.
Being the second and current president to be investigated over sexual abuse isn't an issue - at least as far as the alt-right logic is concerned, where being the second offender in a gang rape is perfectly fine.
And the word "no" basically means "yes" coming from the mouth of a woman as far as the alt-right are concerned so there's no such thing as "rape". Unless the suspect is a democrat in which case the logic is reversed.
Consistent principle is one of those very many qualities in very short supply among the current crop of top-level US government employees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:bluntly
The former was kinda dodgy.
The one now would help hitler invade Poland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:bluntly
"The one now would help hitler invade Poland."
I actually started typing a response as to how that was a bit over the top, then remembered Trumps advice to Xi Jin Ping about the Uyghur detention camps and, yea, well...he probably would, and most likely in the same sycophantic admiration he holds towards Putin, at that. Hitler is, to a T, the exact role model old Fred Trump tried to instill in his sons - the successful "killer" able to walk over the corpses of his peers to get to the top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To split the hair: What Clinton got slapped with was perjury. Which Trump didn't get charged with during impeachment, because nobody can get him to testify live under oath. Clinton just had to choose to lie about fucking around while under oath. If he had lied about anything else, he would have skated. It's quite an irony when you think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah...that one time Trump was able to not open his mouth and lie it turns out to be the saving grace.
"It's quite an irony when you think about it."
Well...what differentiates republican from democrat in their willingness to lie to the public is mainly the outrageousness and active harm of the deceit.
Bill's lies were those of a weasel trying to escape public and private censure of having his knob polished by an oval office intern.
Biden's lies are about carrying water for wall street.
Trump's lies have - for starters - 230,000 dead americans to answer for so far, where the global average indicates there should have been less than a quarter of that.
...and what Bill Barr keeps lying about might end up with every function other than open chat rooms abolished from the US internet for a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not surprising, Trump denies knowing everyone who could potentially harm him. If Pence ever turned on him, Trump would claim that he never even met him. (and his followers would believe him)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Denial=slander lawsuits to evade statute of limitations?
(Note: this has nothing to do with the Westfall act or DoJ.)
I share the general disdain for Donald Trump, but setting aside Trump for the moment, simple denial should not be allowed as grounds for a slander/libel lawsuit when the underlying offense is covered by a statute of limitations. Now, if the defendant had gone on to say the accuser was a mental patient, or had made five previous false accusations, that would constitute independent grounds for a legitimate slander lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Denial=slander lawsuits to evade statute of limitations?
It isn't.
As That One Guy noted upthread, if Trump had simply denied the allegations, he would have been fine. But he went farther than simple denial. His claims that he's never met her and has no idea who she is are potentially false statements of fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Denial=slander lawsuits to evade statute of limitations?
Rather thin gruel, worth about $1 worth of actual damages (unless we're talking about Trump).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Denial=slander lawsuits to evade statute of limitati
No one’s claiming this is a particularly strong case of defamation; quite the opposite. It’s just not weak enough to have gotten it dismissed before discovery, and the DOJ has no place here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Denial=slander lawsuits to evade statute of limi
Right.
Ken White's been running a pretty good series on defamation law and anti-SLAPP statutes. One of the points he raises over and over again is that, in the summary judgement stage, the judge doesn't get to assess how credible a given claim is, only that if the claim is true the plaintiff could win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So isn't that basically like saying the CEO is not an employee of a company?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No it's saying if an employee is getting sued for actions unrelated to their job, it's a lawsuit against the individual and not a lawsuit against the company
In this case, they are not claiming that trump doesn't work for the government, they are claiming that the actions he is getting sued for are not part of his job as president.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]