Justices' Rejection of Trump's Absolute Immunity Claim Should Apply in Civil Defamation Suit, Roberta Kaplan Argues
Kaplan's argument comes just one day after the high court announced its 7-2 decision in Trump v. Vance, which said prosecutors may seek financial records in a criminal investigation.
July 10, 2020 at 12:32 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Roberta Kaplan. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM
Attorney Roberta Kaplan argued Friday that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that President Donald Trump can't claim absolute immunity from a Manhattan grand jury subpoena should directly affect a defamation lawsuit against Trump in New York civil court.
Kaplan's argument comes just one day after the high court announced its 7-2 decision in Trump v. Vance, which said prosecutors may seek financial records in a criminal investigation.
Kaplan represents the advice columnist and book author E. Jean Carroll, who has accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s. Carroll sued Trump for defamation in 2019 after he denied the allegation and said the author made it up, according to court filings.
The president's attorneys have argued that the case must be stayed until the New York Court of Appeals issues its decision in Zervos v. Trump, which involves similar facts. In both cases, Trump has asserted that the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution precludes a sitting president from being brought into state court for conduct that is not related to his federal duties.
The arguments "fail for the same reasons," Kaplan argued in a letter to New York County Supreme Court Justice Verna Saunders on Friday.
"The Supreme Court has now spoken, and it has rejected the supposed state-federal distinction that Trump has pressed in Vance, Zervos, and this case," Kaplan wrote. "In the same breath, the Supreme Court has also rejected the policy arguments Trump has advanced here for treating him as immune from suit in state court."
Arguing against a stay in the Carroll case, Kaplan wrote that the Vance ruling "leaves no question" that the Court of Appeals will allow the Zervos case to move forward.
In a statement, Kaplan emphasized that the Supreme Court ruling showed no one is above the law, not even the president.
"Despite years of delay caused by Trump's lawyers arguing to the contrary, it is now clear that Donald Trump has no special right to defame women who have accused him of sexual misconduct and then avoid the consequences of his actions because he is president," she said. "E. Jean Carroll should be permitted to resume discovery in her case as soon as possible so that a jury can decide who is telling the truth—E. Jean or Donald Trump."
Trump's attorney, Patrick McPartland of LaRocca Hornik Rosen & Greenberg, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.
Trump recently withdrew part of his affirmative defense in the case after Kaplan filed a motion to strike, citing Trump's statements to a group of governors that he lives "in Manhattan." Trump could not simultaneously assert that he is not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York in the Carroll case, Kaplan argued.
READ MORE:
Trump Comment Unravels His Residency Argument Against NY Jurisdiction, Roberta Kaplan Says
Donald Trump's Lawyers Reject Delayed Deposition Schedule in Defamation Case
Defamation Lawsuit Against Donald Trump Can Be Heard by NY Court of Appeals, First Department Rules
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Chicago Law Requiring Women, Minority Ownership Stake in Casinos Is Unconstitutional, New Suit Claims
5 minute read
'Serious Legal Errors'?: Rival League May Appeal Following Dismissal of Soccer Antitrust Case
6 minute read
'It's a Matter of Life and Death:' Ailing Harvey Weinstein Urges Judge to Move Up Retrial
Trending Stories
- 1DeepSeek Isn’t Yet Impacting Legal Tech Development. But That Could Soon Change.
- 2'Landmark' New York Commission Set to Study Overburdened, Under-Resourced Family Courts
- 3Wave of Commercial Real Estate Refinance Could Drown Property Owners
- 4Redeveloping Real Estate After Natural Disasters: Challenges, Strategies and Opportunities
- 5Calif. Fires Should Serve as a Reminder to Fla.’s Commercial Landlords and Tenants Not to Be Complacent
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
