RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Tillman writes: "An appeals court in New York on Thursday became the first appeals court nationwide to rule that a sitting president - in this case, President Donald Trump - is not immune from civil lawsuits in state court."

Summer Zervos leaves Manhattan Supreme Court at the conclusion of a hearing in New York on December 5, 2017. (photo: AP)
Summer Zervos leaves Manhattan Supreme Court at the conclusion of a hearing in New York on December 5, 2017. (photo: AP)


Donald Trump Is 'Not Above the Law,' Court Rules in Defamation Case

By Zoe Tillman, BuzzFeed

14 March 19


"Though he is tasked with significant responsibilities, the President is still a person, and he is not above the law."

n appeals court in New York on Thursday became the first appeals court nationwide to rule that a sitting president — in this case, President Donald Trump — is not immune from civil lawsuits in state court.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department rejected Trump's challenge to a defamation lawsuit brought by a former contestant on The Apprentice, Summer Zervos. Although the US Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that then-president Bill Clinton could be sued in federal court, the justices left open the question of what was allowed in state court.

"Despite the suggestion in his brief that he is the 'embodi[ment of] the Executive Branch,' and though he is tasked with significant responsibilities, the President is still a person, and he is not above the law," Judge Dianne Renwick wrote in the majority opinion.

The appeals court upheld a lower court judge's decision in March 2018 denying Trump's efforts to have the case dismissed. Trump's personal attorney in the case, Marc Kasowitz, said in a statement that they plan to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which is New York's highest state court. A ruling from that court can be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

"We respectfully disagree with the majority decision in the Appellate Division. We believe that the well-reasoned dissenting opinion by 2 of the 5 justices, citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Clinton v. Jones case, is correct in concluding that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution bars state courts from hearing cases against the President while he or she is in office," Kasowitz said.

Zervos's lawyer Mariann Wang said in a statement that they were "very pleased that the First Department has affirmed once again that Defendant 'is not above the law.'"

"The case has proceeded in the trial court and discovery continues. We look forward to proving to a jury that Ms. Zervos told the truth about Defendant’s unwanted sexual groping and holding him accountable for his malicious lies," Wang said.

At a press conference in October 2016, Zervos claimed that years before he was president, Trump on two separate occasions kissed her against her will and groped her, once in his office and another time at a hotel when they met for dinner. Trump denied there was any inappropriate sexual activity, and repeatedly charged that the women accusing him of bad acts were lying. Zervos filed a defamation lawsuit in New York Supreme Court in January 2017.

Renwick wrote that the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution — which generally says that when state and federal law conflict, federal law prevails — did not override a state court's authority to decide cases under the state's own constitution. There is no federal law that conflicts with the defamation claims that Zervos brought against Trump, the judge wrote.

Like the Clinton case in the 1990s, Zervos' lawsuit involves "purely unofficial acts," Renwick wrote. There were reasonable policy reasons why presidents were immune from lawsuits challenging their offiical decisions, she said, but Congress had never passed a law extending that immunity to personal behavior. Once the case went forward, Renwick wrote that there were ways for the trial judge to limit how much the case might interfere with the president's duties — setting clear ground-rules for the president's involvement in the exchange of evidence and allowing the president to testify by video, for instance.

Judge Angela Mazzarelli, who dissented on the constitutional issue and was joined by one other judge from the five-person panel, raised concerns about the court's ability to hold a sitting president in contempt. Renwick said contempt wasn't at issue now, and a court would deal with it later if it did. She did write, however, that it was "likely" that holding a president in contempt would be the type of "impermissible 'direct control'" that the Supreme Court warned against in the Clinton case.

The appeals court also rejected Trump's other challenges to Zervos' lawsuit. The court found that Trump's allegations that his accusers were liars was a statement of fact that could be proven true or false, as opposed to opinion that couldn't be the subject of a defamation case.

"Here, defendant's denial of plaintiff's allegations of sexual misconduct is susceptible of being proven true or false, since he either did or did not engage in the alleged behavior," Renwick wrote.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+5 # chapdrum 2019-03-14 16:55
Um, since Day One, The Don has been (and continues to be) above the law.
 
 
+4 # twocents 2019-03-15 04:44
Or so he thinks...which is an opinion, not a fact.
 
 
+4 # 1dfnslblty 2019-03-15 06:53
The truth is irrelevant to dt and he has the money to live his fantasy; it will be good to se justice done, and potus will continue to feel victimized. Potus is but a symptom of the 'merican malady.boycott violence against women, children and nations.
 
 
+1 # DongiC 2019-03-16 03:32
Trump's exemption from the law is a symptom of how sick America is and his ridiculous base proves how wide spread this disease has become. I think the GOP is fatally affected and I question whether our culture will emerge unscathed. It's like traveling on the Titanic with icebergs just over the horizon. Maybe, we should be heading for the lifeboats.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN