Trump lawyer argues president cant be sued in state court in bid to toss sex-harass defamation suit

[Judi Lynn]

Source: NBC News

DEC 5 2017, 6:56 PM ET

by ADAM REISS and ALEX JOHNSON

President Donald Trump is immune from state court action, his attorney argued Tuesday in opposing a defamation lawsuit by a former "Apprentice" contestant who says Trump sexually assaulted her in 2007.

New York state Supreme Court Judge Jennifer Schechter heard arguments in Manhattan and said she would rule at a later date on the president's motion to dismiss the suit by Summer Zervos, who appeared on NBC's "The Apprentice" in 2006 when Trump was its host.

Zervos is seeking an apology and $2,914 in damages, claiming that Trump defamed her when he ridiculed sexual misconduct allegations she made against him in the weeks before the presidential election as "all made up," adding: "Lies. Lies. No witnesses. No nothing. All big lies."

Zervos had alleged in October 2016 that Trump groped her and made other unwanted sexual contact multiple times during a business meeting at a hotel in Beverly Hills, California, in 2007.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/sexual-misconduct/trump-lawyer-argues-president-can-t-be-sued-state-court-n826831

[Stonepounder]

1. Does this idiot not remember Jones v. Clinton?

SCOTUS ruled that a sitting President could be sued in a civil suit.

cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

[exboyfil]

2. Silly rabbit

Only Democratic Presidents can be sued in state court.

[Stonepounder]

3. Oh yeah. I plumb forgot. IOKIYAR

[4139]

4. You made me look... Jones v Clinton was filed in Federal Court, not state court

From wiki: The suit, Jones v. Clinton, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

[bench scientist]

5. That was was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas is Federal Court, not State Court. The jurisdiction and venue are different.
A sitting President has never been sued in State Court.

[McCamy Taylor]

6. Sorry, but this looks federal to me. Multiple states involved.

[TomSlick]

7. I think the ruling in Jones v. Clinton was not dependent upon the case being in federal court.

Clinton's argument was that the separation of powers required a temporary immunity from civil lawsuits while he was in office. The Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument. "Accordingly, we hold that a sitting President is not immune from suit for his unofficial acts." Jones v. Clinton, 72 F.3d 1354, 1359 (8th Cir. 1996). I find nothing in the opinion that makes a distinction between cases in federal court and those in state courts. Mind you, the decision is from the Eighth Circuit and not necessarily binding on federal courts not in the Eighth Circuit and certainly not binding on the state court in this case - but I would think the court would find the opinion very persuasive.

The result is different if the lawsuit is about the official actions of the President, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), which this is certainly not.

My bet is the motion based on presidential immunity will fail, or if not will be reversed on appeal.

[kwalter66]

8. LOL

Who cares about the circuit court of appeals, the Supreme Court ruled on the case. I was wondering when this would come up. Wonder if Kelly Ann has told Trump yet it was her husband who argued before the Supreme Court that in fact a president could be sued while in office and the Supreme Court agreed.

The court explained that the President, like other officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all citizens, that no case had been found in which an official was granted immunity from suit for his unofficial acts, and that the rationale for official immunity is inappropriate where only personal, private conduct by a President is at issue. The court also rejected the argument that, unless immunity is available, the threat of judicial interference with the Executive Branch would violate separation of powers.

The Court is not persuaded of the seriousness of the alleged risks that this decision will generate a large volume of politically motivated harassing and frivolous litigation and that national security concerns might prevent the President from explaining a legitimate need for a continuance, and has confidence in the ability of federal judges to deal with both concerns. If Congress deems it appropriate to afford the President stronger protection, it may respond with legislation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1853.ZS.html

[TomSlick]

9. You are, of course, correct.

I failed to Shephardize.