88 F.4th 418
2d Cir.2023Background
- E. Jean Carroll alleged that Donald J. Trump defamed her by publicly denying her accusation of sexual assault during his presidency.
- Trump did not raise presidential immunity as a defense in his initial answer to Carroll’s complaint in New York state court in January 2020.
- The case was subsequently removed to federal court; Trump raised the presidential immunity defense for the first time in a summary judgment reply brief nearly three years later.
- The district court denied Trump's request to amend his answer to add the presidential immunity defense, citing undue delay and prejudice to Carroll.
- After Carroll filed an amended complaint, Trump again attempted to assert presidential immunity, but the court struck it, stating it had already been waived.
- Trump appealed the orders denying summary judgment, leave to amend, and striking the defense; the Second Circuit Court consolidated and expedited the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is presidential immunity waivable? | Yes, like other immunity defenses. | No, it is jurisdictional and nonwaivable. | Yes, it is waivable; not a bar to court's subject-matter power. |
| Did Trump waive presidential immunity by not raising it initially? | Waived by not raising in original answer. | Not waived; could be asserted later. | Yes, defense was waived by not raising it in original answer. |
| Should Trump be allowed to amend his answer to add the defense? | Amendment would cause undue delay and prejudice. | No prejudice; delay justified by related legal disputes. | No, district court did not abuse its discretion in denying amendment due to undue delay and prejudice. |
| Does an amended complaint revive a previously waived non-jurisdictional defense? | No, unless new allegations require it. | Yes, new complaint permits reevaluation of defenses. | No, presidential immunity defense not automatically revived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (absolute presidential immunity does not bar court from having jurisdiction; immunity is a defense, not a jurisdictional bar)
- Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (presidential immunity does not protect president from private suits for unofficial acts)
- Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (immunity defenses are not jurisdictional)
- Wilkins v. United States, 598 U.S. 152 (prior references to "jurisdiction" are not controlling if not essential to the outcome)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (distinguished absolute immunity of the President from qualified immunity for other officials)