The case centers on Trump’s legal argument, which was backed by Trump and Biden Justice Department leaders, that he was acting in his official duties when he responded to reporters’ questions about rape allegations Carroll made in a 2019 book.
The litigation has been a controversial issue for the Biden Justice Department, which was criticized by some Democrats for supporting the former President.
The stakes in the case are high. Trump faces a number of lawsuits and investigations and if he loses, he could be ordered to sit for a deposition and provide a sample of his DNA, which Carroll wants compared to genetic material she says was on the dress she wore the day of the alleged assault. If Trump prevails, the case will likely be dismissed, handing him another legal victory weeks after another accuser, Summer Zervos, dropped her defamation lawsuit against Trump sparing him a deposition and any possible financial damages.
In 2019, Carroll sued Trump for defamation after Trump denied her claim that he raped her in a New York department store in the mid-1990s and went on to say she wasn’t his type and that she made the allegation to boost sales of her book.
The case was initially brought in state court but moved by the Trump Justice Department, which argued that since Trump, as president, was serving in his official capacity and therefore the Justice Department should be substituted as the defendant. That could mean the case will be dismissed because the government cannot be sued for defamation.
US district Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected Trump and his DOJ’s argument finding Trump was not a federal employee as Congress defined it. Trump and the Trump DOJ appealed. When the administration changed hands, the Biden DOJ, under Attorney General Merrick Garland continued to back the position.
In a legal brief at the time, the Justice Department wrote that Trump “attacked her appearance, impugned her motives, and implied that she had made false accusations against others,” adding that such statements were “without question unnecessary and inappropriate.”
“But they all pertained to the denial of wrongdoing — which cannot be cleanly severed from the accompanying explanation here,” the department continued. “The fact that the additional statements were, at minimum, inappropriate does not automatically take them outside the limits of the scope of employment.”
Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, previously said that DOJ’s position “is not only legally wrong, it is morally wrong since it would give federal officials free license to cover up private sexual misconduct by publicly brutalizing any woman who has the courage to come forward.”
In June, Garland was asked by lawmakers about DOJ’s position at a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee.
“Look the job of the Justice Department in making decisions of law is not is not to back any administration, previous or present … And the essence of the rule of law is what I said when I accepted the nomination for attorney general, it is that like cases be treated alike, that there not the one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans, that there not be one rule for friends and another for foes,” Garland said in response to a question from Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont.
The argument will be heard by two judges nominated by Democrats and one judge nominated by Trump, William Nardini, a long-time federal prosecutor who was Senate confirmed by a vote of 86-2 in 2019. A decision is not expected for several weeks but oral arguments can often signal which direction the judges are leaning.
