Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A Question for DU Legal Eagles re: DOJ taking over Defamation Case (Original Post) leftieNanner Sep 2020 OP
Yes. The DoJ filed a motion, which means a judge has to grant it. The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2020 #1
That's what I thought leftieNanner Sep 2020 #2
I haven't been able to find out yet which judge it's been assigned to. The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2020 #3
Great info leftieNanner Sep 2020 #4

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,681 posts)
1. Yes. The DoJ filed a motion, which means a judge has to grant it.
Wed Sep 9, 2020, 04:32 PM
Sep 2020

What they are trying to do is substitute the United States for Trump as the defendant on the ground that Trump was acting in his capacity as president, in which case the government would be responsible. But since the government can't be considered to commit defamation, the case would have to be dismissed. I'd be amazed if the judge granted the motion, since it's clear that Trump was acting in his personal capacity, trying to fend off Carroll's assertion that he assaulted her by claiming she's a liar. There's no governmental function or interest at issue when a president makes accusations relating to an entirely personal incident that occurred long before he became president. The shorter answer is that it's bullshit.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,681 posts)
3. I haven't been able to find out yet which judge it's been assigned to.
Wed Sep 9, 2020, 05:08 PM
Sep 2020

It might not have been assigned yet, since procedurally it's part of a process by which a case is removed from the state court where it was first filed (in New York County, which is Manhattan) to a federal court, in this case the Southern District of New York. A state court case can be removed to a federal court if federal jurisdiction can be established, and here they are claiming that the Federal Tort Claims Act applies to Carroll´s claim because Trump was acting in his capacity as president. On that basis they are also moving to substitute the government as the defendant.

Once a case has been removed from state to federal court, the state court no longer has jurisdiction over the case. However, a federal court can remand the case to state court without any request by the plaintiff if the judge does not believe federal jurisdiction has been properly established by the defendant, and the plaintiff can also move to have the case remanded to state court if the plaintiff does not believe there is a basis for federal jurisdiction. I´m sure Carroll will oppose the removal and will try to get the case remanded to the state court.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A Question for DU Legal E...