E. Jean Carroll Brief
E. Jean Carroll Brief
E. Jean Carroll Brief
20-3977 L
( )
20-3978(CON)
IN THE
d E. JEAN CARROLL ,
—v.—
Plaintiff-Appellee,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
i
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page3 of 85
PAGE
ii
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page4 of 85
PAGE
D. Appellants’ Arguments Rest on Legal and Factual
Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
iii
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page5 of 85
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
PAGE(S)
Cases
Ali Jaber v. United States,
155 F. Supp. 3d 70 (D.D.C. 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Armstrong v. Bush,
924 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Armstrong v. Thompson,
759 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D.D.C. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 47, 54, 61
Azar v. Allina Health Servs.,
139 S. Ct. 1804 (2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Bailey v. J & B Trucking Services, Inc.,
590 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D.D.C. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
BedRoc Ltd. v. United States,
541 U.S. 176 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Bello v. United States,
93 F. App’x 288 (2d Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 52
Bergeron v. Henderson,
47 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D. Me. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Blair v. District of Columbia,
190 A.3d 212 (D.C. 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43, 62
Bowles v. United States,
685 F. App’x 21 (2d Cir. 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Boykin v. District of Columbia,
484 A.2d 560 (D.C. 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Burgess v. United States,
553 U.S. 124 (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Chapman v. Rahall,
399 F. Supp. 2d 711 (W.D. Va. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,
567 U.S. 142 (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
iv
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page6 of 85
PAGE(S)
Clark v. McGee,
49 N.Y.2d 613 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Clinton v. Jones,
520 U.S. 681 (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 56, 57
Cooke v. United States,
918 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Corley v. United States,
556 U.S. 303 (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Council on Am.-Islamic Relations v. Ballenger,
366 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Council on Am.-Islamic Relations v. Ballenger,
444 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Cromelin v. United States,
177 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1949) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Davila v. Lang,
343 F. Supp. 3d 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Demas v. Levitsky,
291 A.D.2d 653 (3d Dep’t 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 47
Devlin v. United States,
352 F.3d 525 (2d Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
District of Columbia v. Bamidele,
103 A.3d 516 (D.C. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 46, 61, 62
District of Columbia v. Coron,
515 A.2d 435 (D.C. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54, 61
Does 1-10 v. Haaland,
973 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 2020) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 43, 65
Foretich v. CBS, Inc.,
619 A.2d 48 (D.C. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Foster v. Bork,
425 F. Supp. 1318 (D.D.C. 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
v
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page7 of 85
PAGE(S)
Fountain v. Karim,
838 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Franklin v. Massachusetts,
505 U.S. 788 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 35, 36
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd.,
561 U.S. 477 (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 23
Freytag v. Commissioner,
501 U.S. 868 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
George v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.,
No. 04 Civ. 3263, 2008 WL 4274362 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2008) . . . . . . 45
Harlow v. Fitzgerald,
457 U.S. 800 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton,
491 U.S. 657 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Heindel v. Bowery Sav. Bank,
138 A.D.2d 787 (3d Dep’t 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Ierardi v. Sisco,
119 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Inman v. Dominguez,
371 S.W.3d 921 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Island Associated Cooperative Inc. v. Hartmann,
118 A.D.2d 830 (2d Dep’t 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Jacobs v. Vrobel,
724 F.3d 217 (D.C. Cir. 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Jones v. Clinton,
72 F.3d 1354 (8th Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Jordan v. Medley,
711 F.2d 211 (D.C. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 48
Klayman v. Obama,
125 F. Supp. 3d 67 (D.D.C. 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Littlejohn v. United States,
No. 6:13 Civ. 870, 2013 WL 1840050 (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 2013) . . . . . . . . . 19
vi
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page8 of 85
PAGE(S)
vii
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page9 of 85
PAGE(S)
viii
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page10 of 85
PAGE(S)
Trump v. Vance,
140 S. Ct. 2412 (2020) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 49
United States v. Burr,
25 F. Cas. 30 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1807) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
United States v. Germaine,
99 U.S. 508 (1878) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation,
564 U.S. 162 (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
United States v. Smith,
499 U.S. 160 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
West v. Trump,
No. 19 Civ. 2522, 2020 WL 4721291 (N.D. Tex. July 23, 2020) . . . . . . 19
Weyrich v. New Republic Inc.,
235 F.3d 617 (D.C. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns,
531 U.S. 457 (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Williams v. United States,
71 F.3d 502 (5th Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43, 65
Wilson v. Libby,
535 F.3d 697 (D.C. Cir. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Wuterich v. Murtha,
562 F.3d 375 (D.C. Cir. 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Const., art. II, § 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
U.S. Const., art. II, § 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Statutes
5 U.S.C. § 1 (1946) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5 U.S.C. § 101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 26
5 U.S.C. § 693 (1940 ed. Supp. 1945) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
ix
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page11 of 85
PAGE(S)
x
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page12 of 85
PAGE(S)
Other Authorities
2 J. Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution 480 (2d ed. 1863) . . . . . . . . 49
Br. for Appellant United States, Wilkinson v. Legal Servs. Corp.,
1995 WL 17204605 (D.C. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Br. for the Appellants, Mironescu v. Costner,
2006 WL 1558336 (4th Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Br. for the U.S. as Amicus Curiae, Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP,
No. 19-715, 2020 WL 563912 (U.S. Feb. 3, 2020) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Gillian Metzger, The Constitutional Duty to Supervise,
124 Yale L.J. 1836 (2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Gov’t Defs. Notice of Mot. and Mot. to Dismiss and for Summ. J,
Jewel v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 2012 WL 6218080 (N.D. Cal. 2012) . . . . . . 38
Jordan Fabian & Saagar Enjeti, EXCLUSIVE: Trump Vehemently
Denies E. Jean Carroll Allegation, Says “She’s Not My Type,”
The Hill (June 24, 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Katie Benner, Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to Have Plotted
to Oust Acting Attorney General, N.Y. Times (Jan. 22, 2021) . . . . . . . . . 11
Katie Benner & Charlie Savage, White House Asked Justice Dept. to
Take Over Defamation Suit Against Trump, Barr Says,
N.Y. Times (Sept. 9, 2020) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Mot. to Dismiss, District of Columbia v. Trump,
No. 17 Civ. 1596, 2017 WL 7587415 (Sept. 29, 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Murray Waas, Revealed: White House Liaison Sought Derogatory Info
on E. Jean Carroll from DOJ Official, The Guardian
(Jan. 14, 2021) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
xi
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page13 of 85
PAGE(S)
xii
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page14 of 85
INTRODUCTION
In June 2019, E. Jean Carroll revealed that former President Donald J. Trump
had sexually assaulted her decades earlier. Trump denied it, saying he did not know
who Carroll was and had never met her. But he did not stop there. He launched a
series of vicious, personal attacks. He implied that she was too ugly to rape; that she
had falsely accused other men of sexual assault; and that she had invented her story
for money, or to sell books, or to advance a political plot. None of this was true.
Trump knew that he had assaulted Carroll. He knew who she was. And he knew
what he was doing when he went on a defamation rampage designed to crush her—
to punish and retaliate against her—for daring to reveal his decades-old crime.
Faced with this staggering onslaught, Carroll sought relief in court and sued
Trump for defamation. Her case proceeded in New York state court for ten months.
Trump did everything he could to stall, but his efforts ultimately failed. Just as the
parties were about to engage in merits discovery, the White House prevailed upon
Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d), DOJ lawyers removed the case to federal court
and sought to substitute the United States as the defendant. They took the position
that Trump was just doing his job—i.e., that he was acting within the scope of his
willing to hide the fact that he had raped her long before taking office.
1
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page15 of 85
He first held that the statute invoked by DOJ in support of substitution—the Federal
Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671, as amended by the Westfall
Act—does not apply to the President. That conclusion is compelled by the FTCA’s
authorities, all of which confirm that the FTCA does not apply to the President. On
appeal, DOJ (joined by Trump) seeks to show otherwise, but their arguments make
In the alternative, Judge Kaplan concluded Trump was not acting within the
follows directly from the evidence before the Court and from longstanding principles
of respondeat superior liability. On appeal, DOJ and Trump offer no basis to disturb
that finding. Indeed, there is almost nothing in their briefs that discusses the facts at
all. Instead, they urge the Court to adopt a new rule that would create categorical
immunity for any federal official who defames anyone while speaking to the press
or responding to perceived critics. That rule is both wrong and dangerous, and this
Court should reject Appellants’ effort to avoid answering for Trump’s conduct.
“Public office does not carry with it a license to defame at will, for even the
highest officers exist to serve the public, not to denigrate its members.” Clark v.
2
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page16 of 85
would distort precedent, dishonor the Office of the Presidency, and give succor to
the view that our most powerful political leaders stand entirely above the law. This
FTCA, did Donald J. Trump act within the scope of his employment when he
revealing that he had sexually assaulted her decades before he was elected President?
One evening in the mid-1990s, Carroll went to shop at the Bergdorf Goodman
department store in Manhattan after work. A28 ¶ 22. 1 As she was exiting through
the revolving glass doors on the north side of the building, Trump entered through
the same doors from 58th Street. A28 ¶ 23. Trump recognized Carroll—they had
met at least once before, they traveled in similar circles, and Carroll was then a
frequent guest on the Today show as well as the host of the Ask E. Jean show. A28
1
Citations to “A_” are to pages of the Joint Appendix. Citations to “SPA_” are to
the Special Appendix attached to DOJ’s brief.
3
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page17 of 85
¶ 24. Trump put his hand up to stop Carroll, saying: “Hey, you’re that advice lady!”
A28 ¶ 25. Trump told Carroll that he was at Bergdorf’s to buy a present “for a girl”
and asked Carroll to advise him. A28 ¶ 26. Carroll was surprised by the unsolicited
invitation, but thought the encounter might make for a funny story. Id. So she agreed
Carroll suggested various items: first a handbag, then a hat. A28 ¶ 27. Trump
decided on lingerie. A29 ¶ 29. When he and Carroll arrived at the lingerie
Trump snatched a see-through bodysuit and insisted that Carroll try it on. A29 ¶¶ 30-
31. Bemused, Carroll responded that he should try it on himself. A29 ¶ 31. Trump
and Carroll went back and forth, teasing each other about who should try on the
bodysuit. Id.
Suddenly, Trump grabbed Carroll’s arm and said, “Let’s put this on.” A29
¶ 32. He maneuvered Carroll into a dressing room, shut the door, and lunged at her—
knocking her head against the wall. A29 ¶¶ 33-36. He then forcibly put his mouth
on her lips. A29 ¶ 36. Shocked by Trump’s behavior, Carroll shoved him back and
burst out in awkward laughter, hoping that he would retreat. A29 ¶ 37. Instead,
Trump seized both of Carroll’s arms and pushed her up against the wall again. A29
¶ 38. Trump then jammed his hand under her coatdress and pulled down her tights.
Id. He opened his overcoat, unzipped his pants, pushed his fingers around Carroll’s
4
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page18 of 85
genitals, and forced his penis inside of her. A30 ¶ 39. Carroll resisted, struggling to
break free. She tried to stomp Trump’s foot with her heels. She tried to push him
away. Finally, she raised her knee high enough to push him off her. A30 ¶ 40. Carroll
ran out of the dressing room, out of Bergdorf’s, and onto Fifth Avenue. A30 ¶ 41.
Immediately after Trump attacked her, Carroll told two close friends about
what had happened. A30 ¶¶ 43, 47. One urged her to report the crime, but the other
warned her that Trump would ruin her life if she did. A30-31 ¶¶ 44-48. Carroll chose
silence. She knew how brutal Trump could be and was convinced that nobody would
believe her. Like so many other survivors of sexual assault, Carroll also blamed
herself. A31 ¶¶ 49-50. Carroll did not mention the assault to another soul for over
¶ 53.
For the next two decades, Carroll pursued her career as a writer and advice
columnist while concealing her own trauma. A32 ¶ 55, A33 ¶¶ 59-60. During the
last month of the 2016 election, several women publicly revealed that Trump had
engaged in sexual misconduct. A33 ¶ 61. Carroll saw Trump attack his accusers,
savaging their reputations on the national stage. Id. During this period, though,
Carroll was focused on attending to her dying mother, who was then in hospice care.
A33 ¶ 62. Carroll feared that speaking up would cause a media storm and destroy
5
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page19 of 85
her mother’s remaining time. Id. It was only after her mother died and the #MeToo
finally decided to reveal the truth. A34-36 ¶¶ 65-73. A writer to her core, and
determined to tell her story on her own terms, Carroll described Trump’s attack in a
book released on July 2, 2019. A37 ¶¶ 77, 80. On June 21, 2019, New York magazine
A37 ¶ 79.
Trump responded to Carroll’s account with a slew of lies and personal attacks.
He denied her accusation and insisted they had never met. A38-A42 ¶¶ 81-96. He
insulted her physical appearance, implying that he could not have raped her because
“she’s not my type.” A42 ¶ 97. He accused Carroll of lying about the rape to make
money, increase book sales, or carry out a political agenda. A26 ¶ 11, A38 ¶ 82. He
also pointedly implied that she had falsely accused other men of rape. A40 ¶ 91, A41
¶ 95. Trump made each of these false and defamatory statements with actual malice:
he acted with full awareness that he was lying and with depraved indifference to the
truth. A44-48 ¶¶ 106-128. His goal was to hurt Carroll as punishment and retaliation
6
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page20 of 85
and was released on a plain document lacking any indicia of government business:
7
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page21 of 85
The next day, while departing the White House, Trump made the following
[Trump]: I have no idea who this woman is. This is a woman who has
also accused other men of things, as you know. It is a totally false
accusation. I think she was married—as I read; I have no idea who she
is—but she was married to a, actually, nice guy, Johnson—a
newscaster.
And, you know, people have to be careful because they’re playing with
very dangerous territory. And when they do that—and it’s happening
more and more. When you look at what happened to Justice Kavanaugh
and you look at what’s happening to others, you can’t do that for the
sake of publicity.
It’s a false accusation and it’s a disgrace that a magazine like New
York—which is one of the reasons it’s failing. People don’t read it
anymore, so they’re trying to get readership by using me. It’s not good.
You know, there were cases that the mainstream media didn’t pick
up. And I don’t know if you’ve seen them. And they were put on
8
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page22 of 85
Fox. But there were numerous cases where women were paid money to
say bad things about me. You can’t do that. You can’t do that. And
those women did wrong things—that women were actually paid money
to say bad things about me.
But here’s a case, it’s an absolute disgrace that she’s allowed to do that.
A40-41 ¶ 91.
Two days later, during an interview with reporters from The Hill, Trump
stated, “I’ll say it with great respect: Number one, she’s not my type. Number two,
Carroll filed this action in New York State Supreme Court in November 2019
to redress the injuries caused by Trump’s defamatory statements and to vindicate her
From the very start, however, Trump has done everything in his power to stop
the truth from coming out. He refused to accept service of the Complaint, A99-112,
then moved to dismiss based on his spurious assertion that he was no longer subject
to personal jurisdiction in New York, see A154. When those efforts failed, Trump
moved to stay the action pending a decision on his absolute immunity in Zervos v.
Trump—a case involving another woman who had accused Trump of sexual assault.
2
Jordan Fabian & Saagar Enjeti, EXCLUSIVE: Trump Vehemently Denies E. Jean
Carroll Allegation, Says “She’s Not My Type,” The Hill (June 24, 2019).
9
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page23 of 85
See A171-88. Notably, Trump’s motion was filed just six days after Carroll served
a request seeking a cheek swab for DNA to be compared against unidentified male
DNA found on the dress that Carroll was wearing when Trump sexually assaulted
her. A206, A171. On August 6, 2020, the trial court held that Trump was not entitled
to absolute immunity under Trump v. Vance, 140 S. Ct. 2412 (2020), and denied his
pending stay motion on that basis. A303-06. Trump and his lawyers spent the next
Trump’s intent to litigate Carroll’s claims on appeal in state court. See A362-90.
stay motion—DOJ removed this case to federal district court and moved to substitute
the United States as defendant. A12-13, A19-22. The hook for this maneuver was
the FTCA, which allows the United States to be sued for money damages in federal
district court for certain torts committed by an “employee of the Government while
plaintiff sues such an employee instead of suing the United States, the United States
may substitute itself for that employee upon the Attorney General’s certification that
the employee was “acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time
10
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page24 of 85
The Attorney General subsequently acknowledged that DOJ filed its motion
in response to a request from the White House. See Katie Benner & Charlie Savage,
White House Asked Justice Dept. to Take Over Defamation Suit Against Trump, Barr
Says, N.Y. Times (Sept. 9, 2020). No facts in the case had changed at that point. The
only thing that made September 8, 2020 different from the prior ten months was that
by then, all of Trump’s state court stall tactics, procedural gambits, and assertions of
immunity had failed. Further confirming that DOJ’s decision was undertaken as a
political errand to personally benefit Trump, it has since been reported that a White
House liaison to DOJ “sought out derogatory information late last year from a senior
House Liaison Sought Derogatory Info on E. Jean Carroll from DOJ Official, The
Guardian (Jan. 14, 2021). It has also been reported that the official who provided
Trump in late 2020 to oust the Attorney General and block the results of the
presidential election. See Katie Benner, Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to
Have Plotted to Oust Acting Attorney General, N.Y. Times (Jan. 22, 2021).
The district court scheduled an in-person oral argument for October 21, 2020.
A391. Two hours before that argument, DOJ sought an indefinite continuance
because one DOJ attorney had been denied access to the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
11
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page25 of 85
promptly denied the continuance, ruling that it would hear argument by phone or by
a government lawyer permitted entry to the courthouse, or that it would decide the
motion on the papers. A420. The district court also noted that the relevant COVID-
Carroll’s counsel was present in person and prepared to proceed. A417. DOJ
asked the court to rule on the papers. Id. When Carroll’s counsel requested the
opportunity to submit a sur-reply to rebut new arguments raised in DOJ’s reply, DOJ
objected but then expressly agreed that it would waive these new contentions. Id.
First, he held that the FTCA did not apply to Trump, since the President is not an
“employee of the government” within the meaning of the FTCA, which contains
detailed definitional terms. SPA16-35. Judge Kaplan reached this conclusion on the
Second, in the alternative, Judge Kaplan concluded that even if the FTCA did
apply to the President, Trump had acted outside the scope of his employment in
12
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page26 of 85
not act within the scope of his employment when his conduct is “too little actuated
by a purpose to serve the master.” SPA48. And here, he elaborated, “the undisputed
facts demonstrate that President Trump was not acting in furtherance of any duties
owed to any arguable employer when he made the statements at issue.” SPA60.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews the district court’s legal conclusions regarding DOJ’s
motion to substitute de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Bowles v. United
States, 685 F. App’x 21, 24 (2d Cir. 2017). In undertaking that review, this Court
must view “the tortious conduct in the light most favorable to plaintiff.” Bello v.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
confirm that it does not cover the President. The FTCA applies only to an “employee
among other groups—officers and employees of “any federal agency.” Id. § 2671.
13
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page27 of 85
as “the judicial and legislative branches.” Id. None of these definitions state that the
FTCA covers the President—a significant omission in its own right, since Congress
is not presumed to pass laws that apply to the President only by indirect implication.
Appellants offer two contrary arguments. First, they assert that the FTCA
they add, refers generally to “the executive branch.” But that reading of the statutory
term refers only to Cabinet-level agencies. See 28 U.S.C. § 451. And that
branch” creates disorder, superfluity, and inconsistency within the FTCA’s statutory
definitions. In referring separately to “the judicial and legislative branches” and “the
executive departments,” the FTCA draws a distinction that controls here. Of course,
history teaches that the President is not himself an officer or employee of any
subsidiary component of the executive branch, and so the FTCA cannot apply to the
14
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page28 of 85
The basic flaw in this argument is that it renders most of the FTCA’s definitional
language, as well as numerous amendments to that language over the past half-
century, entirely superfluous. Appellants’ position also fails to respect the FTCA’s
text and structure, which demonstrate that the FTCA’s definitional terms do real,
substantive work in clarifying where the law applies, and which terms encompass
subsidiary components of the executive branch while pointedly not including the
powers principles. As DOJ has itself emphasized elsewhere, courts require a clear,
review of the President’s conduct. The FTCA includes no such clear statement—yet,
on Appellants’ view, it waives sovereign immunity and allows courts to hear claims
that put the President’s conduct directly at issue. For that reason, the Court should
reject Appellants’ atextual invitation to read the President into the FTCA.
II. In the alternative, the Court should affirm on the ground that Trump did
not act within the scope of his employment as President of the United States when
he repeatedly, willfully defamed a private citizen to punish and retaliate against her
after she revealed that he had sexually assaulted her decades before he took office.
view is that New York doctrine controls, though the outcome is the same under either
New York or D.C. law. In both jurisdictions, it is settled that an employee exceeds
15
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page29 of 85
the scope of their employment if their actions are too little actuated by a purpose to
serve the master, and instead reflect principally personal or private motivations. This
rule is often invoked in cases involving sexual misconduct or a desire for revenge,
disproportionate to the needs of their position. By virtue of their willful nature, the
Here, Judge Kaplan correctly concluded that Trump acted outside the scope
of his employment. It is firmly established that a president can act with personal
motivations, and can commit private wrongs while in office. Indeed, Trump himself
insisted in numerous cases over the past several years that he had acted solely for
here—which must be accepted as true and read in Carroll’s favor—it is clear that
Trump’s attack on Carroll was personal, not presidential. That conclusion follows
directly from the allegations of Trump’s willful, punitive, retaliatory state of mind.
outrageous nature of Trump’s efforts to degrade and destroy Carroll; second, the fact
that Trump committed a multi-day spree of intentional torts in which he targeted her
with willful lies; third, the subject matter that prompted Trump’s attacks, which had
sexual misconduct committed decades ago; and finally, the consistency of Trump’s
16
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page30 of 85
conduct here with his reaction as a private citizen to allegations of sexual assault,
which confirms that he was following his own longstanding playbook when he went
after Carroll, rather than pursuing official purposes or his duties as President.
Appellants say almost nothing about all this. Instead, they press a breathtaking
claim: whenever an elected federal official (or indeed any senior federal official)
speaks to the press or responds to critics, they must be held to have acted within the
does not depend on the specific facts, circumstances or evidence of any case.
detailed, fact-sensitive analysis in many prior cases was a needless exercise. And it
reflects a disturbing belief that federal officials should have free rein to destroy the
reputations and livelihoods of any perceived critic—no matter how unrelated to the
business of governance, and no matter how personal their motives for doing so. That
has never been—and never should be—the law in the United States. Judge Kaplan
ARGUMENT
The threshold question in this case is whether the FTCA applies to the
President. To answer that question, the Court “begins with the statutory text”—and
17
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page31 of 85
it should end there as well, because “the text is unambiguous.” BedRoc Ltd. v. United
States, 541 U.S. 176, 183 (2004). Indeed, fidelity to the statutory text is especially
paramount in construing a statute that waives the sovereign immunity of the United
States. Cooke v. United States, 918 F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir. 2019).
definition, [courts] must follow that definition.” Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S.
124, 129 (2008) (quoting Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 942 (2000)).
28 U.S.C. § 2671. The term “federal agency” in this definition “includes the
primarily acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the United States, but does not
18
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page32 of 85
Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001), and it does not hide presidents in
generic definitional terms (or in their penumbras). As Judge Kaplan observed, “it is
lawsuits that bring the president’s official conduct into question.” SPA32.
in cases that did not actually present the question. 4 See DOJ Br. 16; Trump Br. 9, 15.
But as Judge Kaplan concluded following an exhaustive analysis of the statute’s text,
structure, and history, the FTCA simply does not cover the President.
Appellants resist that conclusion on two grounds. First, they argue that the
FTCA expressly covers the President by virtue of its application to officers and
employees of “the executive departments.” Second, they insist that the FTCA applies
3
See Saleh v. Bush, 848 F.3d 880, 891 (9th Cir. 2017); Ali Jaber v. United States,
155 F. Supp. 3d 70, 73 n.1 (D.D.C. 2016), aff’d, 861 F.3d 241 (D.C. Cir. 2017);
Klayman v. Obama, 125 F. Supp. 3d 67, 84-85 (D.D.C. 2015); West v. Trump, No.
19 Civ. 2522, 2020 WL 4721291, at *3 n.6 (N.D. Tex. July 23, 2020); Littlejohn v.
United States, No. 6:13 Civ. 870, 2013 WL 1840050 (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 2013), report
and recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 1840025 (D.S.C. Apr. 30, 2013).
4
Operation Rescue Nat’l v. United States, 147 F.3d 68, 70-71 (1st Cir. 1998); Does
1-10 v. Haaland, 973 F.3d 591, 598 (6th Cir. 2020).
19
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page33 of 85
17-20; Trump Br. 23-28. In support of that position, Appellants assert that the phrase
generally. See id. As Judge Kaplan concluded, however, this argument does not hold
water. That is true for two overlapping reasons: first, the phrase “the executive
and second, reading the statute as Appellants propose makes a mess of its text,
history, and structure. The better reading is that the FTCA’s reference to “the
within the executive branch, but not to the executive branch in its entirety. Of course,
U.S.C. § 2671 affords no basis for treating the President as covered by the FTCA.
20
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page34 of 85
When Congress uses language rich with history and significance in our legal
traditions, courts presume it knows what it is doing. See, e.g., Morissette v. United
States, 342 U.S. 246, 263 (1952). Appellants proceed with the opposite presumption.
That is the wrong way to interpret statutory text. Instead, the best starting point
is a careful examination of statutory language and structure. Here, this leads straight
to 28 U.S.C. § 451, which creates a global presumption that whenever the word
“department” appears in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, it should be given the definition
set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 101. That provision, in turn, expressly defines “executive
legal tradition. Although there were fewer Cabinet departments when the FTCA was
enacted in 1946, the U.S. Code set forth an analogous definition of “executive
departments” at that time. See 5 U.S.C. § 1 (1946). Indeed, this usage of the term
“executive departments” stretches back to the First Congress, which created the
“Executive department[s]” of Foreign Affairs and War. Act of July 27, 1789, ch. 4,
1st Cong. 28-29; Act of Aug. 7, 1789, ch. 8, 1st Cong. 49-50. Consistent with that
history, the Supreme Court has interpreted “executive departments” in the Opinions
21
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page35 of 85
Cabinet-level agencies. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 886-87 (1991);
United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508, 511 (1878). DOJ itself has also understood
settings, and the White House website reflects that understanding. See SPA24-26. 5
defining “the executive departments” as “the executive branch.” Instead, DOJ relies
Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010) (PCAOB). See DOJ Br. 18. But PCAOB only confirms
the need for caution when dealing with definitional terms like this one. There, the
cover the SEC (and other so-called principal agencies). See 561 U.S. at 511. It did
so, however, following a close study of prior practice and original understanding
5
See Operation of the Twenty-Fifth Amend. Respecting Presidential Succession, 9
Op. O.L.C. 65, 69, 1985 WL 185391 (1985); Presidential Succession & Delegation
in Case of Disability, 5 Op. O.L.C. 91, 92, 1981 WL 30883 (1981); Eligibility of Mr.
Mellon for the Off. of Sec’y of the Treasury, 36 Op. Att’y Gen. 12, 13, 1929 WL
1712 (1929); Civ. Serv. Comm’n-Time of Lab., 22 Op. Att’y Gen. 62, 63, 1898 WL
438 (1898); Rel. of the President to the Exec. Departments., 7 Op. Att’y Gen. 453,
463, 1855 WL 2328 (1855).
22
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page36 of 85
Executive Branch.” Id. Further narrowing its holding, PCAOB pointedly separated
the Appointments Clause from the Opinions Clause and the Twenty-Fifth
Amendment for purposes of defining “executive departments.” See id. at 511 n.11.
The upshot of PCAOB is that courts tread gingerly before concluding that a reference
For all these reasons, the FTCA’s reference to “the executive departments” is
not nearly as broad as Appellants suggest. Based on statutory text and structure, as
well as executive and judicial precedent, this phrase generally refers only to Cabinet-
level agencies. In certain cases (like PCAOB), prior practice and usage may support
extending the phrase slightly to cover certain freestanding components within the
executive branch. But our legal traditions teach that this is the outer limit—
especially where, as here, reading the phrase as impliedly encompassing the entire
When parties try to rewrite statutes, they often run into trouble. This case
proves the point. In arguing that Congress chose its words carelessly—and that “the
Appellants provoke a host of interpretive difficulties. See DOJ Br. 19-20; Trump Br.
23-28. The upshot is that the FTCA’s reference to “the executive departments”
23
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page37 of 85
cannot reasonably be read as encompassing the whole branch. See SPA20 (“[I]t is
apparent that this definition does not include the entire executive branch.”).
That is true for many reasons. For starters, Appellants utterly fail to grapple
with the authorities that we cite above—which we also cited in the district court—
The closest Appellants come to a response is DOJ’s insistence that “the meaning of
‘department’ depends on context and can be broader than just the cabinet-level
agencies.” DOJ Br. 18. But there is a world of difference between the holding in
PCAOB, which nudged the door just enough to admit the SEC, and Appellants’
position here, which blows the door off its hinges. If anything, PCAOB’s narrow
Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162, 185 (2011). As originally enacted, the definition of
843. This would have been a waste of words if the FTCA’s reference to “the
branch. See U.S. Government Manual 570 (1946). Similarly, Congress later
24
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page38 of 85
establishments,” exist within the executive branch. See U.S. Const., art. II, § 2; 28
U.S.C. § 2671. Appellants’ position would thus render original statutory text and a
subsequent amendment pointless, offending both the anti-superfluity canon and the
related interpretive principle that “[w]hen Congress acts to amend a statute, [courts]
presume it intends its amendment to have real and substantial effect.” Stone v. I.N.S.,
514 U.S. 386, 397 (1995). These principles confirm that “the executive departments”
The same conclusion follows from still another interpretive canon, which
provides that when a statute uses two different terms (especially in the same statutory
provision), courts should interpret them to mean two different things. See Russello
v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983). Here, in a single provision, the FTCA refers
to “the executive departments” and the “the judicial and legislative branches.” 28
U.S.C. § 2671 (emphasis added). To be sure, DOJ observes that the reference to
“branches” was added later. See DOJ Br. 19-20. But so what? Congress was free at
that point to modify the statute to say “executive branch.” Instead, it left the phrase
6
Trump’s citation to Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206
(1953), does not show otherwise. See Trump Br. 25. That case referred offhandedly
to Congress and the President as the “political departments” but said nothing about
“the executive departments.” Mezei, 345 U.S. at 210.
25
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page39 of 85
decision deserves respect, not a rewrite. See SPA20 & n.51 (“Congress knew how
566 U.S. 449, 456 (2012) (courts “generally seek to respect Congress’ decision to
For his part, Trump places principal reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 451. See Trump
Br. 24. As we’ve already explained, however, that gets things backwards: Section
(namely, the definition set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 101). And for the reasons given above,
relevant historical usage for reading “the executive departments” as though it said
“the executive branch,” and that reading makes nonsense of the statutory language.
7
Notably, even as it enacted the FTCA, Congress also amended the Civil Service
Retirement Act in a manner demonstrating attention to the distinction between “the
executive branch” and “the executive departments.” That Act had previously applied
to “all officers and employees in or under the executive, judicial, and legislative
branches of the United States Government . . . except elective officers and heads of
executive departments.” 5 U.S.C. § 693(a) (1940 ed. Supp. 1945). The 1946
amendment inserted “in the executive branch of the Government” after “elective
officers,” which had the effect of removing elected Members of Congress from the
exception and confining its coverage to the President and Vice President. 5 U.S.C. §
693(a) (1946) (Amendments). That amendment evinced a clear congressional
awareness of the longstanding distinction between “elective officers in the executive
branch” and “heads of executive departments.”
26
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page40 of 85
There is a reason why Appellants would prefer the FTCA to expressly cover
“the executive branch,” rather than covering only “the executive departments.” They
Agriculture. Nor could they. The Constitution itself—as well as an unbroken chain
A335-37 (surveying sources confirming that the President is not himself an officer
departments, each of which has its own employees and is headed by its own distinct
principal officer subject to Senate confirmation and statutory limitations. See Seila
Law LLC v. C.F.P.B., 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2197-2205 (2020); Gillian Metzger, The
27
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page41 of 85
Accordingly, it follows from text and history that the FTCA’s reference to
“the executive departments” cannot be read as covering the President, who is not an
Because the FTCA does not expressly apply to the President—and does not
reach him through its reference to “the executive departments”—Appellants are left
sense.” DOJ Br. 13; see Trump Br. 16-19. To support this position, Appellants
emphasize the FTCA’s breadth, and its use of the words “any” and “include.” See
id. Although it is true that the FTCA sweeps broadly, Appellants push the text well
past its breaking point—in ways that offend basic rules of statutory interpretation
8
This conclusion applies with full force to the Executive Office of the President
(EOP). DOJ cites legislative and judicial usage and practice suggesting that EOP
may rank among the “executive departments” expressly covered by the FTCA. See
DOJ Br. 18-20; see also supra at 22-23 (explaining that the FTCA may extend
beyond the Cabinet to cover discrete freestanding components within the executive
branch). But as Judge Kaplan concluded—and DOJ does not actually contest or
dispute this conclusion on appeal—the President is not an officer or employee of
EOP. See SPA23-24 (“The head of the EOP, which is a network of agencies, is the
president’s chief of staff.”); see also A338-41 (describing the history of EOP and
explaining why constitutional, legislative, and executive branch authorities and
precedents confirm that the President is neither an officer nor an employee of EOP).
Therefore, even if EOP does count among the “executive departments,” that is no
basis for treating the President as covered by this language in the FTCA.
28
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page42 of 85
president in this statute, it would have done so clearly.” SPA19 n.48. Because
Congress did not make that choice, the President is not subject to the FTCA.
“employee of the government” provided in the FTCA. As they see it, because that
applies very broadly. So broadly, in fact, that it reaches anyone, anywhere who “is
States in return for a salary and other compensation.” DOJ Br. 14.
This may have been a simpler definition, but it is not the one Congress wrote
into law. Adopting it, moreover, would render superfluous huge swaths of relevant
FTCA as originally enacted featured the same uses of “any” and “includes” that
Appellants cite. If this language truly required a “literal” test for employment—and
rendered the enumerated definitional terms merely illustrative of that test—then the
statute is riddled with empty language. To start, the FTCA includes “officers” in the
Congress presumably included “officers” to make clear that the FTCA covers those
who lead agencies, not only those who staff them. But every officer of a federal
29
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page43 of 85
agency is also an employee of the federal government in the literal sense proposed
by Appellants—and so there would have been no need for Congress to include the
Yet that is just the tip of the iceberg. In 1946, the definition of “employee of
the government” did not include “members of the National Guard while engaged in
organization.” See 60 Stat. 843. Those terms were added in 1981 and 2000,
respectively. See Pub. L. No. 97-124, § 1, 95 Stat. 1666 (1981); Pub. L. No. 106-
518, § 401, 114 Stat. 2421 (2000). Nor did the original statutory definition of
“federal agency” include “the military departments” or “the judicial and legislative
branches,” which were added in 1966 and 1988, respectively. See Pub. L. No. 89-
506, § 8, 80 Stat. 306, 307 (1966); Pub. L. No. 100-694, § 3, 102 Stat. 4563, 4564
(1988). 9 If the FTCA as originally enacted—with its use of “any” and “includes”—
9
When Congress added “military departments,” an accompanying Senate Report
explained that the reason was “to include [the military departments] in the
definition.” S. Rep. No. 89-1327 (1966), 1966 WL 4317. In other words, the Senate
did not understand the FTCA at that point to capture everyone employed by the
federal government. It instead viewed the FTCA’s definitional terms as significant.
Similarly, when Congress added the judicial and legislative branches in 1988, the
House Committee Report opined that the FTCA previously “cover[ed] employees
of the Executive Branch only.” H.R. Rep. No. 100-700 at 5 (1988).
30
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page44 of 85
were all-encompassing from the outset, as Appellants insist, then none of these
correct, not a single amendment to the FTCA’s definitional provisions has had any
concrete effect on who is covered by the statute, contravening the principle that
statutory amendments are presumed to have “real and substantial effect.” Stone, 514
U.S. at 397.
It follows that Appellants are mistaken. Since the FTCA was enacted, courts
have not treated “employee of the government” as a catch-all term. They have
instead paid careful attention to the specific language in its statutory definition. That
is why Congress saw fit to add references to the National Guard, the Federal public
defender service, the military, and the judicial and legislative branches. To be sure,
Appellants insist that their catch-all view is longstanding. But DOJ itself argued on
several occasions before passage of the Westfall Act that the FTCA did not apply to
the legislative and judicial branches because they were not specifically listed in the
Thus, whereas DOJ suggests that Congress has always viewed the FTCA as
applying far beyond its language, see DOJ Br. 13-14 (citing legislative history),
Congress’s own actions—including its actions amending the FTCA’s definitional
provisions—show otherwise. See also Azar v. Allina Health Servs., 139 S. Ct. 1804,
1814 (2019) (“[L]egislative history is not the law.”).
10
In support of its view, DOJ cites a 1947 opinion from the Comptroller General
concluding that the Library of Congress is a federal agency covered by the FTCA.
31
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page45 of 85
States, 177 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1949); Foster v. Bork, 425 F. Supp. 1318, 1319-
20 (D.D.C. 1977); see also McNamara v. United States, 199 F. Supp. 879, 880-81
(D.D.C. 1961) (DOJ argued that FTCA was limited; court disagreed). 11 As these
sources demonstrate, the decades since the FTCA’s passage gave rise to debate over
who was covered by its plain text—an issue that Congress addressed several times
The better approach is to take seriously the statutory language. A close look
the FTCA uses the word “includes” in a particularized manner. This is not a statute
that says “include” before providing a non-exhaustive, illustrative list of terms that
naturally fall within the more general phrases being defined. See Christopher v.
DOJ Br. 13. Respectfully, that opinion was no model of clarity. See Federal Tort
Claims Act—Applicability to Agencies in Other Than Executive Branch of
Government, 26 Comp. Gen. 891, 892 (1947). And in 1980, another Comptroller
General opinion reversed course, noting that “good arguments may be made” for the
position that Members of Congress are not covered by the FTCA. Matter of
Claiborne Pell, U.S. Senate, B-199413, 1980 WL 16158 (Aug. 11, 1980).
11
Trump suggests that the district court’s opinion in McNamara is entitled to special
consideration because the judge who decided it assisted with drafting the FTCA.
Trump Br. 24 & n.12. But other courts (and the House Report accompanying the
Westfall Act) disagreed with that interpretation of the FTCA, and it should go
without saying that a single staffer’s personal views of what Congress intended
cannot eclipse a statute’s plain text.
32
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page46 of 85
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142, 162 (2012). Instead, it uses “includes” to
specify that certain non-obvious entities fall within the general phrase. For example,
(and was understood in 1946) to mean someone who works for wages or a salary.
See Employee, Webster’s New International Dictionary 839 (2d ed. 1934).
the judicial and legislative branches, even though the Judiciary and Congress do not
fall within the common understanding of the term “agency.” E.g., Administrative
Procedure Act, Pub. L. No. 79-404, § 2(a), 60 Stat. 237, 237 (1946). In these
respects, the terms that Congress used in defining who is covered by the FTCA are
This leads to the second key point: words are known by the company they
keep (noscitur a sociis). See S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Env’t Prot., 547 U.S.
370, 378 (2006). And the words in the FTCA keep a very specific sort of company:
33
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page47 of 85
components of the remaining branch. DOJ says that “it would have been difficult to
draft more all-embracing definitions.” DOJ Br. 12. Not so. It would have been easy
for Congress to add “the President” (who is referenced in many other laws), or
“elective officers in the executive branch” (a phrase enacted into law in the Civil
Appellants would prefer it said). Instead, knowing full well how to specify a branch
of government, or even the elected officials of a branch, Congress has only ever
National Guard.” 28 U.S.C. § 2671. None of these terms applies to the President,
who alone composes a branch of government that Congress did not include within
the FTCA’s plain language. See Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2034
(2020). 12
fundamentally differently situated than the President, it would defy logic to treat
12
Appellants cite several cases treating the President as an “employee” under other
statutes. See DOJ Br. 13-15; Trump Br. 15-16, 19-20, 24-25. But courts “must
follow” the FTCA’s “explicit definition,” not definitions in other statutes. Stenberg,
530 U.S. at 942.
34
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page48 of 85
illustrative, the statute still does not encompass the President because the “types of
See Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305, 317 (2010). As Judge Kaplan reasoned, “[t]he
plain meaning of this language is that members of Congress, federal judges, and the
staffs of both all were included in the term ‘federal agency.’ But the entire executive
branch is not. Only those parts of the executive branch that fall within the other terms
principle articulated in Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992). There, the
Supreme Court held that the President is not an “agency” under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA). See id. at 799. Noting that the APA does not expressly refer
to the President, it explained that “[o]ut of respect for the separation of powers and
13
DOJ resists this conclusion, invoking United States v. Smith, 499 U.S. 160, 173
(1991). See DOJ Br. 15. That reliance is misplaced. Smith held that the Westfall Act
applied to “employees who are covered under pre-Act immunity statutes and those
who are not.” 499 U.S. at 173. It explained that “[w]hen Congress wanted to limit
the scope of immunity available under the [Westfall Act], it did so expressly.” Id.
Citing this language out of context, DOJ contends that it requires an “express
exclusion” for the FTCA not to cover the President. DOJ Br. 15. That is a patent
misreading of the case: Smith required an express exclusion to show that somebody
who otherwise enjoyed FTCA immunity could still face liability based on a separate
federal statute, not to show that somebody fell within the FTCA’s coverage in the
first place. Here, the President does not satisfy that threshold requirement.
35
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page49 of 85
the unique constitutional position of the President . . . [w]e would require an express
That principle clearly applies here. The FTCA expressly waives the sovereign
immunity of the United States as to certain conduct by federal employees within the
the President is indeed subject to the FTCA, then Congress subjected the President’s
conduct to judicial review when it enacted the FTCA in 1946. As Judge Kaplan
recognized, Appellants thus ask “this Court to do precisely what Franklin forbids:
to take a statute that, at best from the government’s standpoint, is silent on the
discretion review of presidential conduct under the FTCA due to the discretionary
function exemption; therefore, Franklin cannot apply here. DOJ Br. 27-28.
36
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page50 of 85
But (as DOJ should well know) that argument falls apart at the very first step.
were framed much more broadly. Thus, in holding that the President’s actions are
not reviewable under the APA, Franklin cited Armstrong v. Bush, 924 F.2d 282
(D.C. Cir. 1991)—specifically, the page where Judge Wald emphasized that
In fact, less than two years ago, DOJ rejected the very proposition that it
asserted by the plaintiffs in that case. See Reply Br. 16, Blumenthal v. Trump, No.
19-5237, 2019 WL 5727504 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 5, 2019). And that was no aberration—
time and again, across administrations, DOJ has concluded that Franklin imposed a
Federal Judges, 19 Op. O.L.C. 350, 352, 1995 WL 1767997 (1995) (citing Franklin
for the “well-settled principle that statutes that do not expressly apply to the
37
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page51 of 85
prerogatives”). 14
given the stark absence of any clear statement subjecting the President’s conduct to
judicial review under the FTCA, the Court should hold that it does not cover him.
context with added force. Under the FTCA, courts must determine whether an
14
See, e.g., Pet. Reply Br. 22, In re Donald J. Trump, No. 20-331, 2020 WL 7681471
(U.S. Sept. 2020) (citing Franklin to argue that “‘an express statement by Congress’”
is necessary “before a generally available cause of action . . . may be applied to the
President”); Br. for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 15, 22, Trump v. Mazars
USA, LLP, No. 19-715, 2020 WL 563912 (U.S. Feb. 3, 2020) (describing Franklin
as “requiring an ‘express statement’ ‘before assuming Congress intended’ to regulate
the President”); Br. for the Appellants at 25, Mironescu v. Costner, 2006 WL
1558336 (4th Cir. 2006) (arguing that a statute does not supersede a “historically-
recognized power[]” of the executive branch on issue of extradition because
Franklin and Armstrong would require a clear statement); Br. for Appellant United
States at 16-17, Wilkinson v. Legal Servs. Corp., 1995 WL 17204605 (D.C. Cir.
1995) (arguing that a statute did not abrogate the President’s Recess Appointments
Clause powers because Franklin and Armstrong’s “clear statement requirement
should be particularly applicable”); Gov’t Defs.’ Notice of Mot. and Mot. to Dismiss
and for Summ. J. at 29, Jewel v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 2012 WL 6218080 (N.D. Cal.
2012) (citing Franklin to argue that “displacement of the state secrets privilege
cannot be found unless Congress made clear its intent to do so”).
38
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page52 of 85
employee of the government has acted within the scope of his or her employment.
By its very nature, this inquiry directs judicial attention to conduct that may arise at
the outer limits of a federal employee’s official duties. Appellants’ position thus
suggests that Congress waived sovereign immunity and subjected to judicial review
actions of the President at the boundary of his personal and official capacities. In
light of the undoubted sensitivities that may surround such judicial review, the Court
should insist that Congress speak clearly before authorizing it in a federal statute.
Against all this, DOJ offers little more than a policy argument: “[t]he
possibility of substitution” under the Westfall Act “is valuable independent of the
immunity [the Act] provides.” DOJ Br. 26 (internal quotation marks omitted). But
this argument is doubly flawed. First, the President already enjoys absolute
immunity from suit for damages in cases concerning his official conduct—and in
such litigation, even absent formal substitution mechanisms, DOJ nearly always
represents the President and litigates in his stead. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S.
800, 807 (1982); see also 28 U.S.C. § 517; 28 C.F.R. § 50.15. Second, DOJ’s policy
procedures that DOJ invokes were not enacted until 1988 (in the Westfall Act), and
do not afford a ground on which to infer that a law enacted in 1946 applies sub
39
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page53 of 85
President—does not apply here. The decision below should be affirmed on that basis.
below on the ground that Trump was acting outside the scope of his employment as
President of the United States when he repeatedly and willfully defamed Carroll. We
first explain why New York (not D.C.) law governs that inquiry. We then describe
we demonstrate that Appellants’ arguments rest on clear legal and factual error.
In the district court, the parties disagreed over whether New York or D.C. law
Kaplan concluded that there was no true conflict, since President Trump acted
outside the scope of his employment under either New York or D.C. law. See
SPA40-41, 60. On appeal, Appellants maintain that D.C. law applies. See DOJ Br.
29; Trump Br. 32 n.15. Although the outcome is indeed the same either way, the
Court should apply New York’s well-developed body of respondeat superior law.
40
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page54 of 85
The starting point for this analysis is Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1
(1962), which held that courts must apply “the whole law (including choice-of-law
rules)” “of the State where the act or omission occurred.” Id. at 3, 11; see also Devlin
v. United States, 352 F.3d 525, 532 (2d Cir. 2003). In this case, the relevant acts
occurred in D.C. The Court therefore applies D.C. choice-of-law rules, which direct
attention to four considerations: “the place where the injury occurred”; “the place
where the conduct causing the injury occurred”; “the domicile, residence,
nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties”; and “the
Here, the first, third, and fourth factors strongly favor New York: Carroll was
injured in New York; both she and Trump were domiciled in New York when Trump
committed his torts;15 and their relationship was centered in New York. The second
factor does not strongly favor either jurisdiction: although Trump was physically in
D.C. when he made his defamatory statements, they were instantly broadcast
nationally. Therefore, New York has the “most significant relationship to the
dispute.” Id.; see Weyrich v. New Republic Inc., 235 F.3d 617, 626 (D.C. Cir. 2001)
15
As noted above, Trump initially disputed his New York domicile, but lost a motion
to dismiss on that basis, see A149, and later withdrew his affirmative defense of lack
of personal jurisdiction, see A267-84.
41
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page55 of 85
(in defamation cases, “[t]he weight of authority considers that the law to be applied
. . . is [that of] the place where the plaintiff suffered injury by reason of his loss of
reputation”); Foretich v. CBS, Inc., 619 A.2d 48, 54 n.9 (D.C. 1993) (same).
Strangely, Appellants do not mention D.C.’s four-factor test, much less argue
that it favors applying D.C. respondeat superior law. Instead, they urge the
application of D.C. law simply because “the employment relationship between the
President and the United States is centered in D.C.” DOJ Br. 30; see Trump Br. 32
n.15. For this proposition, Appellants cite Jacobs v. Vrobel, 724 F.3d 217, 221 (D.C.
Cir. 2013), which in turn cites Majano v. United States, 469 F.3d 138, 141 (D.C. Cir.
2006), which in turn cites Kimbro v. Velten, 30 F.3d 1501, 1506 (D.C. Cir. 1994),
which in turn cites . . . nothing. In fact, Kimbro says nothing about choice of law and
has no reasoning on the subject, let alone a discussion of Richards or D.C. choice-
of-law principles. It appears that all three cases simply state the rule without any
cited basis in D.C. doctrine; this may reflect the fact that none of these cases involved
an actual choice-of-law dispute, since all three cases addressed torts committed in
employee. Whatever the explanation, Jacobs cannot support applying D.C. law here.
As a fallback, DOJ suggests that even if New York’s “substantive tort law
42
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page56 of 85
particular, DOJ takes the position that D.C. choice-of-law principles point to “the
law of the jurisdiction where the employment relationship was centered, not the site
of the alleged tort” as governing the respondeat superior question. DOJ Br. 30. In
support of that proposition, they cite Bailey v. J & B Trucking Services, Inc., 590 F.
interests that does not exist here. Id. at 10. For that reason, and those given above,
the Court should apply New York law to the issues at hand—an outcome consistent
with authorities that have similarly applied other states’ respondeat superior law in
10 v. Haaland, 973, F.3d 591, 599 (6th Cir. 2020) (applying Kentucky law);
Williams v. United States, 71 F.3d 502, 506 (5th Cir. 1995) (applying Texas law).
and D.C. (we will address both bodies of law)—an employer may be held liable for
the acts of an employee “only if those acts were committed in furtherance of the
N.Y.3d 383, 389-90 (2019); accord Blair v. District of Columbia,190 A.3d 212, 225
43
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page57 of 85
(D.C. 2018). Disputes over whether an employee acted within the scope of his
employment are generally questions of fact reserved for juries. See SPA41-42.
It is black letter law that an employee acts outside the scope of employment if
their conduct is “too little actuated by a purpose to serve the master.” Restatement
(Second) of Agency § 228 (1958); see also Swarna v. Al-Awadi, 622 F.3d 123, 144-
45 (2d Cir. 2010); District of Columbia v. Bamidele, 103 A.3d 516, 525 (D.C. 2014);
N.X. v. Cabrini Med. Ctr., 97 N.Y.2d 247, 251 (2002); Demas v. Levitsky, 291
A.D.2d 653, 661 (3d Dep’t 2002); Heindel v. Bowery Sav. Bank, 138 A.D.2d 787,
788 (3d Dep’t 1988). “Under such circumstances, the conduct—although occurring
during the course of his employment—is outside the scope of [his] employment.”
Ierardi v. Sisco, 119 F.3d 183, 188 (2d Cir. 1997). Significantly, that rule controls
even if “an activity which benefits an employee personally could also have a possible
benefit to the employer.” Overton v. Ebert, 180 A.D.2d 955, 957 (3d Dep’t 1992).
relating to sexual misconduct. See Ross v. Mitsui Fudosan, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 2d 522,
531 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (“New York courts consistently have held that sexual
misconduct and related tortious behavior arise from personal motives and do not
context.” (emphasis added)); see also, e.g., Ierardi, 119 F.3d at 188-89 (sexual
44
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page58 of 85
example, the Second Department ordered dismissal of a claim alleging that a hospital
employee had acted “within the scope of her employment” in making an allegedly
8, 9-10, 12-13 (2d Dep’t 1998) (finding she acted “solely for personal motives”).
In a similar vein, courts have identified personal motives where the allegations
for revenge. See, e.g., Pohlman v. Village of Freeport, No. 19 Civ. 5277, 2020 WL
5878257, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2020); George v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., No. 04
Civ. 3263, 2008 WL 4274362, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2008); see also Bergeron
Dominguez, 371 S.W.3d 921, 926 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) (Missouri law).
Across a wide range of settings and alleged intentional torts, courts have long
persuasive in considering whether his motivation was purely personal.” Penn Cent.
Transp. Co. v. Reddick, 398 A.2d 27, 31 (D.C. 1979) (cleaned up). In other words—
to borrow from the Restatement (Second) of Agency—“the fact that the servant acts
necessities of his master’s business is evidence indicating that the servant has
departed from the scope of employment in performing the act.” § 245 cmt. f.
45
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page59 of 85
That rule applies with particular force in suits involving “an intentional tort,”
which “by its nature is willful and thus more readily suggests personal motivation.”
Jordan v. Medley, 711 F.2d 211, 215 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (Scalia, J.); see also Majano,
469 F.3d at 142 (“The nature of the attack also informs the intent analysis.”);
involving a public figure, the plaintiff must allege that the defamatory statements
were published with “actual malice.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254,
280 (1964); see also Armstrong v. Thompson, 759 F. Supp. 2d 89, 95 (D.D.C. 2011)
(concluding in an FTCA case that a federal employee acted for personal motives,
and thus outside the scope of her employment, in making defamatory statements).
Many of these principles came into play in Perks v. Town of Huntington, 251
whereupon she initiated a sexual relationship with him and—once he terminated the
Among other causes of action, Perks alleged two defamation claims against Scarpati-
Reilly. See id. at 1164-71. On both of these claims, Perks also sought recovery from
46
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page60 of 85
Scarpati-Reilly had acted on the basis of her own personal motives. See id.
That claim arose from a false police report that Scarpati-Reilly filed against Perks
acted outside her employment in filing the report—and that she had instead acted
official duties did not require her to file police reports against Town employees; (2)
her official position conferred no special authority to file such reports; (3)
Huntington had not instructed her to engage in such behavior; and (4) her filing of
the report did not “yield any benefit for Huntington or further its interests.” Id. at
that I do I’m acting as Councilwoman for the Town of Huntington.” Id. Judge
Young, however, rejected her position, concluding that her defamatory statement did
not fall within her employment because it resulted from personal motives. Id.
employee acts for personal reasons, their conduct falls outside the scope of their
employment. That rule applies in the defamation context. E.g., Armstrong, 759 F.
Supp. 2d at 95; Rausman, 248 A.D.2d at 9-10, 12-13; Demas, 291 A.D.2d at 661. It
47
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page61 of 85
applies to public officials. See Perks, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 1167. It applies even if an
employee can identify some incidental benefit to the employer. See Overton, 180
tort, Jordan, 711 F.2d at 215, engages in conduct out of proportion to the needs of
their position, Penn Cent., 398 A.2d at 31, or acts based on motives relating to their
own sexual misconduct, see, e.g., Perks, 251 F. Supp. 2d. at 1164-71; Ross, 2 F.
Supp. 2d at 531; Rausman, 248 A.D.2d at 9-10, 12-13. And as Judge Kaplan found,
it most certainly applies to Trump’s conduct here, which had nothing to do with the
launched as retaliation for revealing a sexual assault that occurred decades ago.
President of the United States of America.” U.S. Const., art. II, § 1. “This grant of
authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive
and sensitivity.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 751 (1982). In our legal tradition,
and by virtue of being held “accountable to the people through regular elections,”
Seila Law, 140 S. Ct. at 2203, the President “possesses an extraordinary power to
48
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page62 of 85
speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf.” Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392,
2417-18 (2018). The President thus enjoys a “unique status.” Nixon, 457 U.S. at 750.
Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 713 (1997) (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment).
American Constitutional Law 631 (3d ed. 2000). It is a fundamental precept of our
being above the laws, he is amenable to them in his private character as a citizen.” 2
J. Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution 480 (2d ed. 1863) (James Wilson). And
magistrate” are not so “unremitting” as to consume “his whole time.” United States
v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 34 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1807). The Supreme Court has thus
recognized that the President may engage in private acts beyond the “‘outer
perimeter’ of his official responsibility,” Nixon, 457 U.S. at 756; that he remains
“subject to the laws for his purely private acts,” Clinton, 520 U.S. at 696; and that
he can be investigated for private criminal misdeeds, see Trump v. Vance, 140 S. Ct.
2412, 2426-27 (2020). These cases confirm that all Presidents retain a personal
capacity, and the ability to commit private wrongs, during their public service.
This principle is only further supported by Trump’s conduct during his tenure
in government. More than any other recent president, he repeatedly insisted that
49
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page63 of 85
aspects of his conduct in office were entirely private and personal—at least when
doing so afforded him the prospect of private financial gain or the power to censor
critics. See Pet. for Writ of Cert. at 15, Trump v. Knight First Amendment Institute,
No. 20-197 (U.S. Aug. 20, 2020) (“[B]locking third-party accounts from interacting
at 31, District of Columbia v. Trump, No. 17 Civ. 1596, 2017 WL 7587415 (Sept.
29, 2017) (arguing that Trump remained free to profit from private commercial
transactions with foreign powers while in office, so long as he did not receive
(or equivalent) relationship with a foreign government”). These filings confirm that
Trump did not view his every word and deed as presidential, or as undertaken with
official purposes in mind, even when those actions might incidentally have
implications relating to his job. By his own admission, Trump sometimes perceived
interests—while in office. And as Judge Kaplan found, that is exactly what happened
In 2019, Carroll revealed to the public that Trump had sexually assaulted her
in New York City over twenty years earlier. Like other presidents who have been
50
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page64 of 85
accused of misconduct, Trump denied it. But he went much further than simply
denying her statement and calling for an investigation. He decided to viciously and
quite personally attack Carroll. He mocked her appearance, implying he would not
have raped her because “she’s not my type.” A42 ¶¶ 97-98. He also claimed
(implausibly) he had never met her and that he had no idea who she was. See A38
¶ 82; A40 ¶ 91. Even as he denied any knowledge of Carroll, he lied about her in
ways plainly calculated to punish and retaliate against her for daring to speak the
truth. He charged that she had made the whole thing up for financial gain, to increase
book sales, and to advance a nefarious political plot. See A26 ¶ 11. He also strongly
implied that she had falsely accused other men of rape—a vicious, horrible, and
extremely personal attack against a woman he claimed to know nothing about. See
DOJ and Trump’s lawyers appear embarrassed by the statements they have
been tasked with defending. Rightly so. It seems they could not bring themselves to
include a single quote from his actual remarks in their argument that he acted within
the scope of his employment. They fail even to describe each of his statements and
to explain how those lies about Carroll reflected public service, not personal spite.
Yet that is their burden to carry as to each defamatory statement. The question
here is whether, each time he attacked Carroll, Trump acted in furtherance of his
51
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page65 of 85
question, moreover, the Court does not bend any inferences in Trump’s favor. It
must view “the tortious conduct in the light most favorable to the plaintiff” based
upon the record before it. Davila v. Lang, 343 F. Supp. 3d 254, 270-71 (S.D.N.Y.
2018); see also Bello v. United States, 93 F. App’x 288, 289-90 (2d Cir. 2004).
Here, the record before the Court consists centrally of the Complaint, which
sets forth detailed allegations as to Trump’s motives for making the defamatory
true, Appellants hardly address them. To summarize: Trump knew who Carroll was
when he raped her, A44-45 ¶¶ 106-12; he knew in June 2019 that he had assaulted
her and that his denials were false, A45 ¶¶ 113-15; he deliberately lied, and spoke
with no concern for the truth, in accusing Carroll of fabricating the accusation in
sales, A45-46 ¶¶ 116-18; he deliberately lied, or spoke with no concern for the truth,
in implying that Carroll had falsely accused other men of sexual assault, A46 ¶¶ 118-
19; and he engaged in these personal attacks because they were his modus
had sexually assaulted women, A46-48 ¶¶ 122-27. Simply put, Trump “knew he was
lying when he said that Carroll had fabricated her rape accusation for a hodgepodge
of unsavory reasons that he himself had invented out of whole cloth.” A48 ¶ 128.
Further, Trump did not lie to advance any interest of the United States; in fact, he
52
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page66 of 85
did not consider such interests at all. He lied to protect himself from the truth about
his pre-office criminal misconduct and, after he knowingly lied about the sexual
assault itself, “he surrounded that central lie with a swarm of related lies in an effort
Applying the law of respondeat superior (whether from New York or D.C.),
neither DOJ nor Trump made any effort to refute below—support only a single
conclusion: “President Trump was not acting in furtherance of any duties owed to
nature, tone, and content of Trump’s statements confirm that he defamed Carroll
“pursuant to [his] own personal motives.” Perks, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 1171. Trump
did not simply deny Carroll’s accusation, call for an investigation, and make some
broader point about politics or public discourse. Instead, with full awareness of his
lies and indifference to truth, Trump used the loudest megaphone on the planet to
launch a personal attack on Carroll. He implied she was too ugly for him to sexually
assault; he charged that she had falsely accused other men of rape; and he concocted
a malicious narrative under which Carroll lied to make money or increase book sales
or advance some vague political conspiracy. A26 ¶ 11. If this is not evidence of
personal ill will and spite, it is hard to imagine what would be. Trump sought to
53
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page67 of 85
destroy Carroll after she revealed that he had assaulted her. There is no basis here
for concluding that Trump had any presidential obligation to make these statements,
Instead, the natural conclusion is that Trump acted “in an outrageous manner”
and “inflict[ed] a punishment out of all proportion to the necessities of his master’s
performing the act.” Restatement (Second) of Agency § 245 cmt. f. Where (as here),
an employee “did not handle the situation in a manner expected” of his office and
instead behaved like “an individual bent on personal vengeance for a perceived
personal affront,” courts have not hesitated to conclude that he acted for personal
reasons outside the scope of his employment. District of Columbia v. Coron, 515
A.2d 435, 438 (D.C. 1986); see also Armstrong, 759 F. Supp. 2d at 95 (finding under
D.C. law that the tone and content of alleged defamatory letters had “an air of
contempt and deprecation” evincing “personal motives”); Penn Cent., 398 A.2d at
32 (“The violent and unprovoked nature of [the employee’s] attack indeed suggests
To be clear, the point is not simply that Trump departed from how prior
his behavior toward Carroll—which far exceeded any public purpose and seemed
54
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page68 of 85
calculated to punish and retaliate against her for revealing his earlier private sexual
Appellants gloss over the point, but it bears emphasis: as alleged in the Complaint,
Trump made each of these statements with actual malice—both literally and in the
technical sense. See Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657,
666 (1989). That willful state of mind powerfully supports finding that he acted for
personal reasons, rather than in furtherance of his job duties. As the D.C. Circuit has
recognized, “it would be unusual to find, as a matter of law, that an employee was
acting within the scope of her employment [under D.C. law] when she committed
an intentional tort,” which “by its nature is willful and thus more readily suggests
personal motivation.” Majano, 469 F.3d at 141 (citation omitted). Indeed, it would
send a deeply troubling message for the Court to conclude that Trump’s defamation
spree against Carroll was simply him doing his job. No court has held that the
sexual assault that took place decades before he took office, and the allegations have
no relationship to the official business of the United States.” SPA60-61; see also
55
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page69 of 85
motives); Boykin v. District of Columbia, 484 A.2d 560, 563 (D.C. 1984)
(recognizing that prior dealings between the parties “would indicate that the tort was
personal”). These are precisely the sorts of defamatory statements relating to sexual
misconduct that courts have treated as beyond the scope of employment. See Ross, 2
the sitting president for defamation after she accused him of engaging in sexual
misconduct before he took office.” SPA55. But unlike Carroll—who alleges that
Trump himself defamed her through personal attacks extending far beyond a mere
denial—Jones alleged only that “various persons authorized to speak for the
President publicly branded her a liar by denying that the incident had occurred.”
Clinton, 520 U.S. at 685; see also Jones v. Clinton, 72 F.3d 1354, 1359 n.7 (8th Cir.
1996) (noting that Jones had focused on actions “by Mr. Clinton’s presidential press
secretary”). In these respects, the Clinton case involved far more government action
(a coordinated press strategy among White House staff), but significantly fewer
indicia of personal animus than Trump’s attacks on Carroll (the statements at issue
were mainly just denials). Presented with these facts, the Supreme Court cautiously
56
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page70 of 85
assessed that the defamation claims “arguably may involve conduct within the outer
If the claims in Clinton fell “somewhere between being outside the scope of
his duties and ‘arguably . . . within their outer perimeter,’” SPA56, it follows that
the claims here are certainly beyond the “outer perimeter” of presidential duty. Not
only are Trump’s statements far more outrageous and personally targeted than
Clinton’s denials of the Jones allegations, but they were uttered (or dictated) by
Trump himself as attacks on Carroll following her revelation of his earlier sexual
how conduct that at most is in the ‘outer perimeter’ of the president’s job duties
could be actuated in any meaningful degree to serve his master, whomever that may
be.” Id.
its consistency with the personal attacks he has launched for decades against other
women who accused him of sexual misconduct. See A46-47 ¶¶ 122-27. Simply put,
Trump’s attacks on Carroll did not reflect anything unique to his high office, nor did
they arise from any distinctively presidential consideration. Rather, they followed
directly from a modus operandi stretching back decades into his life as a private
citizen. This consistency supports the conclusion that Trump’s efforts to destroy and
discredit Carroll were simply how he responds to any woman who accuses him of
57
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page71 of 85
sexual misconduct; they had nothing to do with his duties as President. He wanted
Indeed, this conduct was far more obviously based on personal motives—and
See supra at 49-50. Trump viewed profitable commercial dealings with hostile
presidential. He insisted that blocking people from a social media platform on which
he fired Cabinet secretaries and announced significant public policy was personal,
not presidential. Only in a world gone mad could it be presidential, not personal, for
In Appellants’ view, the facts of this case are almost entirely irrelevant. They
would have the Court issue a sweeping declaration that “an office holder responsible
to the electorate is acting within the scope of his office when he responds to
accusations and attendant media inquiries that call into question his fitness to hold
the public trust.” DOJ Br. 31; see also Trump Br. 33 (seeking rule that “speaking to
as calling into question their “fitness to hold the public trust.” So Appellants’
proposed test would automatically find any elected federal official to be within the
58
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page72 of 85
scope of their employment anytime they respond to anyone (including any private
citizen) who criticizes them in any way, including for conduct that occurred decades
before they took office. Under Appellants’ preferred standard, there is no room to
matter may be, how unrelenting and outrageous the response is, or how disconnected
it may be from any government business. Moreover, nothing about Appellants’ logic
explains why this rule should be limited to elected officials: their contentions would
map easily onto senior officials in the political branches. At bottom, Appellants ask
affording them carte blanche to use the public platform inherent in their office to
attack anyone who criticizes them for anything they have ever done.
precedent and inconsistent with our legal traditions. Although Appellants have
gerrymandered a theory designed to avoid any engagement with the facts of this
case, or the reality of Trump’s conduct as alleged in the Complaint, that theory must
The first flaw in Appellants’ position is that it effectively collapses the settled,
multi-factor standard for respondeat superior analysis into a single factor. As they
see it—and especially as DOJ frames the analysis, see DOJ Br. 31-35—the only
59
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page73 of 85
to critics. If so, they insist, the analysis is complete and the official was acting within
the scope of their employment, since speaking to the press and responding to critics
are the types of things that federal officials typically do as part of their jobs. But in
both New York and D.C., whether an employee is doing the kind of work he is
employed to perform is just one factor among several others that must be satisfied
respondeat superior standard). To the extent Appellants seek to write off the
error and cannot be sustained on that basis. See, e.g., DOJ Br. 34 (suggesting without
explanation or citation that the private purpose element may not apply to this case,
that an employee might satisfy the first requirement yet still fall outside the scope of
supra at 44. Not surprisingly, there is a long line of cases concluding that individuals
otherwise engaged in the customary duties of their position veered outside the scope
of their employment because some intentional tort they committed was motivated
by private purposes. M.J. Uline Co. v. Cashdan, 171 F.2d 132 (D.C. Cir. 1948),
offers an especially vivid example. There, a hockey player hit the puck at a bystander
60
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page74 of 85
(injuring him) in the middle of a game. The district court instructed the jury that the
player was acting within the scope of his employment, but the D.C. Circuit reversed,
explaining that he “may have been, at the moment when he struck the blow,
completely indifferent to the work he was employed to do and actuated only by anger
or hostility toward the man he tried to injure.” Id. at 134. Uline reflects a principle
that has since been applied in many other cases, and that precludes Appellants’
position. E.g., Majano, 469 F.3d at 142; Perks, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 1167; Armstrong,
759 F. Supp. 2d at 94; Penn Cent., 398 A.2d at 30; Coron, 515 A.2d at 438; see also,
e.g., Bamidele, 103 A.3d at 525 (holding that, “[a]t least where intentional torts are
duty, or even that those duties bear some causal relationship to the tort”).
This leads to Appellants’ second major error: their claim that Trump acted
within the scope of his employment if even a scintilla of the motivation for each of
his statements attacking Carroll was not purely private. See Trump Br. 40-42. That
need not be ‘wholly in furtherance of the employer’s business’” to fall within the
scope of employment, “a slight purpose to serve the master is not enough.” SPA48
(quoting Blair, 190 A.3d at 226). Therefore, “[c]onduct of a servant [that] is . . . too
little actuated by a purpose to serve the master’ is not within the scope of
employment.” Id. (quoting Bamidele, 103 A.3d at 525) (emphasis added); see also
61
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page75 of 85
Majano, 469 F.3d at 141 (stating and applying the “too little actuated” test); Overton,
180 A.D.2d at 957 (3d Dep’t. 1992) (disagreeing “that the doctrine of respondeat
personally could also have a possible benefit to the employer”); Island Associated
Cooperative Inc. v. Hartmann, 118 A.D.2d 830, 831 (2d Dep’t 1986) (citing the
303 (1979) (holding New York law requires consideration of many factors). 16
“Trump’s comments concerned media reports about an alleged sexual assault that
took place more than twenty years before he took office. Neither the media reports
nor the underlying allegations have any relationship to his official duties.” SPA58.
All that is particularly true given the circumstances described above demonstrating
16
Insisting otherwise, Appellants cite Blair v. District of Columbia, 190 A.3d 212
(D.C. 2018). But Blair did not purport to change D.C. law, which has always
followed the Second Restatement of Agency, including its “too little actuated”
principle. See, e.g., Bamidele, 103 A.3d at 525 & n.6 (“We have long endorsed the
Second Restatement’s approach.”); see also Council on Am.-Islamic Relations v.
Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659, 663 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (acknowledging this principle). To
the extent Blair may suggest a more restrictive approach than the D.C. courts have
followed for many decades, that suggestion is dicta, since the facts did not present a
borderline scenario where the difference could have mattered. See Blair, 190 A.3d
at 216-17 (police officer announced he was on duty and instructed people to leave
the premises before his alleged assault on the plaintiff).
62
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page76 of 85
that his motives in insulting, degrading, and defaming Carroll were indeed
personal. 17
This leads to Appellants’ final and most fundamental error. It is settled law
that the respondeat superior inquiry is intensely context dependent—so much so that
it is presumptively entrusted to juries as a fact issue. See Majano, 469 F.3d at 140-
41 (collecting D.C. cases); Rivera, 34 N.Y.3d at 390 (collecting New York cases).
In contravention of that rule, Appellants essentially ask this Court to hold as a matter
The cases Appellants cite do not support that counterintuitive proposition. For
personal as Trump’s repeated attacks on Carroll. Nor did they involve circumstances
where the speaker had cause for personal animus and retaliation against someone
who had revealed their own criminal wrongdoing. Instead, most of the cases that
17
The fact that Trump uttered these statements while speaking about other topics is
not a point in his favor. Contra Trump Br. 45. It shows his willingness to take
advantage of his office while pursuing a personal agenda against Carroll. An official
is not free to retaliate against someone who reveals their private sexual misconduct,
so long as they also discuss public policy later in the same interview.
63
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page77 of 85
each of those cases, judges relied not on generalities about speaking to the press, but
instead on a careful study of the specific facts surrounding the challenged statements
In Wuterich v. Murtha, 562 F.3d 375 (D.C. Cir. 2009), for instance, a U.S.
criticizing the Defense Secretary’s handling of the Iraq War. In the course of those
remarks, Murtha stated that a particular squad (in which the plaintiff had served) had
been responsible for the death of civilians in Haditha, Iraq. See id. at 378-80. The
plaintiff alleged that Murtha sought only private political gain by embarrassing the
Defense Secretary. See id. at 384. Faced with these facts, the D.C. Circuit easily
found that Murtha was actuated by a desire to serve the master: “Attacking the
credibility of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the man who was the public face of the
war in Iraq, was . . . part and parcel of Congressman Murtha’s job as a legislator
charged with overseeing military affairs and of his efforts to serve his constituents
385. Wuterich confirms that when Members of Congress critique Executive Branch
officials and policies, while overseeing those officials and pushing legislative reform
to those policies, they are not acting for private reasons unrelated to their jobs.
64
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page78 of 85
That said, Wuterich does not stand for the doubtful, disturbing proposition that
anytime a federal officer attacks anyone who has criticized him, he is doing his job.
Contra DOJ Br. 32. Nor does Wilson v. Libby support that position: like Wuterich,
it involved actors and motivations deeply enmeshed in debates over United States
public policy. See 535 F.3d 697, 712-13 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding that senior
officials who acted with the goal of defending the administration’s handling of war-
related intelligence were within the scope of their employment in revealing a CIA
operative whose husband had published criticism of U.S. intelligence policy). The
other cases Appellants cite lend even less support to their position. 18
F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2006), upon which Appellants place principal reliance. See DOJ
18
See Does 1-10, 973 F.3d at 599-601 (Representative Haaland and Senator Warren
acted within the scope of their employment while “reasonably connecting Plaintiffs’
rhetoric and clothing to President Trump in order to comment on an event that had
received widespread press attention and that resonated with the pressing issue of
funding for the border wall”); Williams, 71 F.3d at 507 (Chairman of the House
Appropriations Committee acted within the scope of his employment when he
criticized a lobbyist while discussing the status of an appropriations bill pushed by
that same lobbyist); Operation Rescue Nat’l v. United States, 975 F. Supp. 92, 94–
95 (D. Mass. 1997) (Senator Kennedy acted within the scope of his employment
when he criticized a violent anti-abortion organization while speaking about a bill
he had sponsored—which was set for a vote the next day—meant to protect access
to women’s health clinics from that very group); Chapman v. Rahall, 399 F. Supp.
2d 711, 713-15 (W.D. Va. 2005) (Congressman acted within the scope of his
employment when he criticized a commentator while responding to a question about
his ties to a political group that some constituents associated with terrorism).
65
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page79 of 85
Br. 31; Trump Br. 34. That reliance is misplaced. In Ballenger, a congressman spoke
to a reporter about the dissolution of his marriage (which he thought his constituents
would care about) and, in the course of that discussion, glancingly stated that CAIR
was the “fund-raising arm for Hezbollah.” Id. at 662. When CAIR sued for libel, the
D.C. Circuit upheld dismissal of its claim, concluding that the Congressman’s
about his personal life and his ability to carry out his political agenda. Id. at 664-66.
Although this case and Ballenger both involve the discussion of an elected
official’s personal life, that is where the similarity ends. In Ballenger, the evidence
did not disclose any particular reason for the statement about CAIR. There was no
made a single stray comment about CAIR—a group actively engaged in lobbying
D.C. Further, he had submitted to the district court a detailed affidavit testifying that
his purpose in discussing his marriage was to ensure his efficacy as a legislator. 19
repeatedly singled out Carroll for malicious lies. He attacked her three times over
19
See Affidavit of Cass Ballenger, Council on Am.-Islamic Relations v. Ballenger,
366 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2005) (No. 03 Civ. 2488).
66
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page80 of 85
four days. He implied that she was too ugly to sexually assault. He accused her of
and imputed vile motives. He did all this against a private citizen (not a leading civil
acted with obvious private motives—consistent with his prior practice—to punish
and retaliate against her for revealing his decades-old crime. Whereas the statements
in Ballenger register as reckless, Trump knew exactly what he was doing. And he
official discusses his private life for reasons related to his job. See 444 F.3d at 664-
66. That makes sense: officials may sometimes need to comment on their private
lives to do their jobs effectively. But nowhere does Ballenger (or any other case)
articulate a rule that elected officials always and everywhere act with public
their private lives. To the contrary, Ballenger explicitly denies any broad-based rule
nature.” Id. at 666. It then emphasizes that its result “cannot be divorced from its
that federal officials may defame anyone in their dealings with the press—at any
67
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page81 of 85
time, for any reason, no matter how private the subject matter or how outrageous
That is especially true, it seems, if the target of the officials’ attacks has dared to
criticize them, even for private misconduct that occurred long ago. On that view, the
was free to undertake repeated private tortious acts for personal gain, and to be seen
as furthering the interests of his job as President in doing so, since pursuing his own
(“[T]here is no basis for concluding that a D.C. court would ignore the nature and
content of his statements and hold that anything he says is within the scope of his
heard to argue that he is free to willfully injure private citizens who reveal that he
raped them because inflicting such harm might help him politically and is thus part
of his job. That reasoning disgraces the American Presidency and the rule of law. It
most immediately calls to mind King Louis XIV’s declaration, “L’état, c’est moi.” 20
mean that a president is free defame anyone who criticizes his conduct or impugns
68
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page82 of 85
In exchange for a promise to serve the country and all who live here, federal
officials are vested with great power. It is a betrayal of this public trust to weaponize
that power while pursuing selfish interests in silencing and retaliating against those
who reveal private malfeasance. A White House job is not a promise of unlimited
defamatory attacks. That is not the law—and this Court should not make it so.
In the district court, Carroll explained that if the court were inclined to grant
DOJ’s substitution motion, it should first authorize limited discovery and hold an
acted within the scope of his employment. A357. Because the district court denied
the motion to substitute, it did not reach that argument. In the event that this Court
were to conclude that the district court erred, the proper course would be to vacate
the judgment and remand for discovery so that the district court may decide the
F.3d 129, 138 (2d Cir. 2016); see also, e.g., Stokes v. Cross, 327 F.3d 1210, 1214
69
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page83 of 85
(D.C. Cir. 2003); Ballenger, 444 F.3d at 663 (recognizing that the district court
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the decision below should be affirmed.
Leah Litman
701 South State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
leah@llitman.com
(734) 647-0549
70
Case 20-3977, Document 79, 04/16/2021, 3079961, Page84 of 85
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
This brief complies with this Court’s Order of April 6, 2021, granting
Appellee’s motion to file an oversized brief of not more than 18,000 words. This
brief contains 17,993 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R.
App. P. 32(f).
This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5)
and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6), because this brief has
been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word for Office
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 16, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing with
the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit via the Court’s
CM/ECF system, which will send notice of such filing to all counsel who are