Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Carroll v. Trump

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawDefamationPresidential ImmunityPunitive DamagesIssue Preclusionpresidential immunitywaivernon-jurisdictional defense

Facts

In 2019, after New York magazine published Carroll's accusation that Trump sexually assaulted her in 1996, Trump publicly denied the allegation, denied knowing her, and accused her of fabricating the story for personal and political motives. In a separate case, Carroll II, a jury later found that Trump had sexually abused Carroll in 1996 and had defamed her in a similar post-presidency statement. Relying in part on that verdict, the district court in Carroll I granted summary judgment to Carroll on liability, including falsity and actual malice, and tried only damages. At the damages trial, Carroll introduced evidence that Trump's statements were seen by tens of millions, triggered extensive harassment and death threats, damaged her reputation and career, and were followed by years of repeated similar attacks by Trump.

Issue

Whether Trump was entitled to reconsideration of the prior rejection of his presidential-immunity defense after Trump v. United States, and whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on liability, excluding part of Trump's testimony, instructing the jury on punitive damages, and upholding the damages awards. The case also asked what New York law requires for punitive damages in a defamation case when no qualified privilege is involved.

Rule

Presidential immunity is a waivable, non-jurisdictional defense, and nothing in Trump v. United States required reconsideration of the court's prior ruling that Trump had waived it. Under New York defamation law, punitive damages require proof of common law malice, but absent a qualified or conditional privilege, the plaintiff need not show that common law malice was the defendant's sole motive; common law malice for punitive damages may be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. A district court may grant summary judgment on actual malice where the undisputed record and preclusive prior findings permit only the conclusion that the defendant knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for their truth.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nadia Soren sued President Adrian Pike in Illinois state court for defamation based on statements he made while in office. Pike's answer asserted only that the state court lacked authority to proceed against a sitting President during his term, and after removal to federal court he litigated for two years before first raising absolute presidential immunity in a summary-judgment brief.

How should the federal court treat Pike's absolute presidential-immunity argument?

Explanation. The majority treated presidential immunity as non-jurisdictional and waivable. A defendant who asserted only a temporary or different immunity theory and failed to plead absolute presidential immunity in a timely manner waived it. A later attempt to raise it in summary judgment does not revive the defense. (Derived from Carroll v. Trump (n.d.).)