Trump Lawyers Blast 'Flawed' Court Decision



by NOUMAN RASOOL

Trump Lawyers Blast 'Flawed' Court Decision
© Sean M. Haffey/GettyImages

In a landmark decision that could set a significant legal precedent, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that former President Donald Trump cannot invoke presidential immunity in a defamation lawsuit filed against him by writer E.

Jean Carroll. The case, which has garnered widespread attention, sees Carroll seeking at least $10 million in damages, centering on remarks made by Trump in 2019 that she claims were defamatory. The appellate court's decision marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal saga, effectively upholding a previous ruling by a federal judge.

Trump's legal representatives had previously attempted to have the case dismissed on the grounds of presidential immunity, a defense that has now been consistently rejected by the judiciary. "The Second Circuit’s ruling is fundamentally flawed, and we will seek immediate review from the Supreme Court," stated Alina Habba, an attorney for Trump, signaling a potential escalation of the legal battle to the nation's highest court.

Appeals Court Urges Speed

The appeals court, in its judgment, noted the prolonged nature of the proceedings, stating, "A three-year delay is more than enough, under our precedents, to qualify as ‘undue.' ” This observation underscores the court's perspective on the need for a timely resolution to the case, which is now scheduled for trial on January 16.

Robbie Kaplan, representing Carroll, expressed satisfaction with the appeals court's decision. "We are pleased that the Second Circuit affirmed Judge Kaplan’s rulings and that we can now move forward with trial next month on January 16," Kaplan commented, indicating a readiness to proceed to the trial phase of the lawsuit.

This ruling not only impacts the defamation lawsuit but also has broader implications for Trump's legal strategy. The former president has employed similar defenses of immunity in other legal challenges, including his federal criminal case in Washington.

The outcome of this appellate decision could potentially influence the approach and effectiveness of such defenses in Trump's ongoing and future legal confrontations. As the case moves towards trial, it remains a focal point of media and public attention, offering a complex interplay of legal arguments, presidential privilege, and the boundaries of immunity in the context of defamation suits involving public figures.

The forthcoming proceedings and potential Supreme Court review are anticipated to further clarify these critical legal principles.