Last week marked another loss for Donald Trump’s legal team in court, this time in New York. Judge Lewis Kaplan decisively rejected Trump’s motion to delay the second E. Jean Carroll defamation case, clearly branding the appeal as ‘frivolous’. According to documentation provided by
Court Listener, this motion was aiming to postpone the lawsuit based on pending interlocutory appeal which raises questions concerning several aspects of law.
The crux of the matter is Trump’s assertion of ‘absolute immunity’ for any statement he made during his presidency. This includes the derogatory comments he made about Carroll in 2019. Interestingly, this argument took his legal team till December of 2022 to come up with.
The defense’s stance has been that presidential immunity is ‘unwaivable’, which permits it to be raised at any point during the legal proceedings. They did not back this position by citing any legal precedents or cases. Judge Kaplan has previously rejected this argument, ruling that there is no such thing as absolute presidential immunity and even if that were the case, Trump had already forfeited it.
Despite facing repeated failures in advancing this appeal, Trump has filed an interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit and is demanding a stay in the case. The trial has been scheduled for January 2, 2024.
Trump’s frequent attempts at delay tactics did not go unnoticed by Judge Kaplan who criticized his approach as dilatory and in bad faith. He reprimanded, “This case was largely stalled for years due in large part to Mr. Trump’s repeated efforts to delay.” Judge Kaplan further expressed his disbelief at forceful attempts to postpone the resolution of the case.
From Judge Kaplan’s viewpoint, any harm Trump may face from this trial advancing whilst the appeal is in process can be traced back to his own procrastination in raising the issue. Comparatively, Carroll, who is nearing 80 and has been attempting to validate her claim for nearly four years, faces significant harm with any further delays.
Further unmasking Trump’s appeal as bare assertion, Judge Kaplan signaled it as unmeritorious and irrelevant in the consideration of public interests. In a particularly damning statement, Judge Kaplan labeled the appeal as frivolous. This declaration not only poses embarrassment for Trump’s legal team, Alina Habba and Michael Madaio, but also quashes Trump’s claim that the trial court has no jurisdiction.
Backing up his assertion, Judge Kaplan referred to multiple New York federal cases, along with a
1996 Supreme Court decision. As per this rule, unless the district court certifies that the appeal is frivolous, the case proceedings are halted against the defendant appealing under the collateral order doctrine.
Case details for both Carroll v. Trump lawsuits can be found at the following links: Carroll v. Trump I and Carroll v. Trump II.
The full court records and discussion further emphasize Judge Kaplan’s decision to deny the delay and brand the appeal as frivolous. This judgment serves as a reminder of the potential drawbacks when employing delay tactics and raising immunity defenses in legal proceedings.