Carroll v. Trump
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
88 F. 4th 418 (2023)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
In November 2019, while Donald Trump (defendant) was president of the United States, E. Jean Carroll (plaintiff) asserted that Trump had sexually assaulted her in the 1990s. Trump responded with a series of statements denying the accusation and alleging that Carroll made the false accusation to sell a book. Carroll sued Trump for defamation. In December 2022, Trump moved for summary judgment. Trump raised presidential immunity as an affirmative defense for the first time in his reply brief on the motion. Trump also filed a motion for leave to amend his answer to include presidential immunity. In July 2023, the district court denied Trump’s motion for leave to amend and his motion for summary judgment, finding that Trump waived his presidential-immunity defense by failing to raise it at the beginning of the litigation. Concurrently, in May 2023, Carroll filed an amended complaint, adding additional statements that Trump had made. Trump filed an amended answer to the complaint that relied on presidential immunity for the first time. The district court struck the portion of the amended answer that relied on presidential immunity. The court ruled that Trump had waived the defense and could not revive it with an amended answer filed approximately three years after his initial answer. Trump appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cabranes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.