171 A.D.3d 110
N.Y. App. Div.2019Background
- Summer Zervos (former Apprentice contestant) sued Donald J. Trump for defamation based on his public denials (tweets, rallies, debate) of her 2016 allegations of unwanted sexual conduct.
- Zervos filed in New York state court in January 2017 seeking retraction, damages, and an apology.
- Trump, then President, moved to dismiss or stay: (1) arguing the Supremacy Clause and separation-of-powers principles bar state-court jurisdiction over a sitting President; (2) arguing the statements were nonactionable political rhetoric and not "of and concerning" Zervos; and (3) invoking California’s anti‑SLAPP statute.
- The motion court denied dismissal and stay, held Clinton v. Jones (federal suit against a sitting President for unofficial pre‑office conduct) controlling, applied New York defamation law, and rejected anti‑SLAPP relief.
- The Appellate Division (First Dept.) affirmed: state courts may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over civil suits against a President for unofficial pre‑office conduct; Zervos stated a defamation claim under New York law; California’s anti‑SLAPP statute did not bar the New York action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Supremacy Clause bars a state court from exercising jurisdiction over a sitting President for unofficial pre‑office conduct | Clinton v. Jones permits courts to hear unofficial‑conduct suits; Supremacy Clause does not immunize President absent conflicting federal law | State court control over a sitting President implicates Supremacy Clause and could impermissibly interfere with execution of federal law; therefore dismissal or stay required | Supremacy Clause does not categorically bar state‑court jurisdiction here; state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction absent an affirmative federal law ousting state jurisdiction; denial of dismissal/stay affirmed |
| Whether the President has immunity from civil suit for unofficial pre‑office acts | No immunity for unofficial acts; Clinton v. Jones controls | Presidential identity/always‑in‑function argument creates unique burden warranting immunity in state court | Presidential immunity for unofficial acts rejected; Nixon v. Fitzgerald limited to official acts; Clinton controls so no blanket immunity in state court absent federal displacement |
| Choice of law: whether California law (including anti‑SLAPP) governs or New York law applies | Zervos argued New York law applies; California anti‑SLAPP is procedural and inapplicable | Trump argued California law should apply and anti‑SLAPP bars suit | No actual conflict shown between NY and CA defamation law; New York law applied; California anti‑SLAPP not applied to bar the NY action |
| Whether the pleadings fail as a matter of law (opinion, not "of and concerning," lack of damages) | Zervos: denials and labeling as lies/fabrications are provable factual denials and can be defamatory; pleadings adequately allege actual malice and damages | Trump: statements are political rhetoric/opinion, not ‘‘of and concerning’’ Zervos, and insufficiently pled damages | Court held statements could be actionable (denials susceptible of proof; mixed opinion actionable); many statements "of and concerning" Zervos; pleading sufficed to survive dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) (federal courts may hear civil suits against a sitting President for unofficial pre‑office conduct; separation‑of‑powers does not mandate immunity)
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) (absolute presidential immunity for official acts within outer perimeter of official responsibility)
- Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990) (state courts presumptively have concurrent jurisdiction over federal‑law claims absent clear congressional intent to oust them)
- Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130 (1876) (state courts may exercise concurrent jurisdiction unless exclusive federal jurisdiction is express or implied)
- Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729 (2009) (discussing limits on state authority when federal law conflicts; presumption of concurrent jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U.S. 174 (1988) (Supremacy Clause can shield federal activities from state regulation unless Congress permits)
- Hancock v. Train, 426 U.S. 167 (1976) (Supremacy Clause does not bar all state regulation touching federal activities; context matters)
- Mayo v. United States, 319 U.S. 441 (1943) (limited circumstances where state action affecting federal operations is permissible)
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (federal courts can check presidential overreach; historical example of court constraining executive action)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (President not immune from judicial process in producing evidence in criminal proceeding)
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) (states cannot control or impede federal constitutional operations)
- Davis v. Boeheim, 24 N.Y.3d 262 (2014) (New York law on when statements are factual vs. opinion; governing test for defamation meaning and "of and concerning")