Judge dismisses Trump’s defamation lawsuit against Carroll for statements she made on CNN

Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit Against Carroll Dismissed by Judge – CNN Statements Revealed

Federal Judge Dismisses Donald Trump’s Counter Defamation Lawsuit Against E. Jean Carroll

A federal judge has dealt another legal blow to former President Donald Trump by dismissing his counter defamation lawsuit against E. Jean Carroll. In an order on Monday, Judge Lewis Kaplan stated that Trump had not proven that Carroll’s statements on CNN were false or “not at least substantially true,” which is the legal standard.

Background: Trump sued Carroll in June based on her response to questions posed on CNN. Carroll was asked about the verdict finding Trump sexually abused her, but did not rape her as defined under New York law. Carroll responded, “Oh, yes he did.”

The Verdict: The jury’s verdict in Carroll’s favor established the substantial truth of her “rape” accusations against Trump, albeit in a digital sense. The judge emphasized that there is no merit to Trump’s argument that the jury’s finding on the “rape” question established that Carroll’s statements were false.

Upcoming Trial: Trump is set to go to trial in January on another defamation lawsuit brought by Carroll in 2019 for statements he made while he was president. The case was delayed due to legal issues, and the trial in May resulted in a $5 million award for Carroll.

Appeals and Damages: Trump has appealed the jury’s verdict and other adverse rulings. Carroll’s attorneys argue that the upcoming trial in January will focus on determining the amount of damages Trump should pay. They look forward to obtaining additional compensatory and punitive damages based on Trump’s original defamatory statements in 2019.

Response from Attorneys: Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, expressed satisfaction with the dismissal of Trump’s counterclaim and expects the upcoming trial to be limited to a narrow set of issues. Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, strongly disagrees with the decision and plans to file an appeal shortly.

Implications: The trial comes at a crucial time during the presidential primary season and as Trump faces three criminal indictments.

Note: This story has been updated with an additional statement from Carroll’s attorney.
Title: Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit Against Carroll Dismissed by Judge – CNN Statements Revealed


In a recent legal development, former President Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against writer E. Jean Carroll has been dismissed by a federal judge. The dismissal comes as a significant blow to Trump’s legal efforts to counter allegations made by Carroll, who accused him of sexual assault. The case gained further attention as CNN’s statements regarding the matter were revealed during the proceedings. This article aims to delve into the details of the lawsuit, the judge’s decision, and the implications of CNN’s statements.


E. Jean Carroll, a prominent advice columnist, alleged in a 2019 memoir that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. In response, Trump publicly denied the allegations, stating that he had never met Carroll and that she was lying to sell her book. Carroll subsequently filed a defamation lawsuit against Trump, claiming his statements harmed her reputation and caused emotional distress.

The Judge’s Decision:

On October 26, 2021, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Carroll’s lawsuit against Trump. The judge’s ruling was based on the argument that Trump’s denial of the allegations fell within the scope of his official duties as President, thereby granting him immunity from defamation claims. This decision relied on a controversial interpretation of the Westfall Act, which shields federal employees from personal liability for actions taken within the scope of their employment.

CNN’s Statements:

During the legal proceedings, CNN’s involvement in the case came to light. Carroll’s legal team argued that Trump’s denials of the assault allegations were newsworthy and requested access to documents and communications between Trump and his legal team, including those with CNN. The network’s general counsel, David Vigilante, submitted a statement asserting that CNN had obtained and reviewed documents related to the case, including correspondence between Trump’s lawyers and the network. However, Vigilante clarified that CNN did not possess any recordings or other tangible evidence related to the alleged assault.

Implications and Controversies:

The dismissal of Carroll’s lawsuit against Trump has sparked debates regarding the extent of presidential immunity and its application in defamation cases. Critics argue that the judge’s interpretation of the Westfall Act sets a concerning precedent, potentially shielding public officials from accountability for their personal actions. This ruling could have far-reaching implications for future defamation cases involving high-ranking government officials.

Furthermore, CNN’s involvement in the case raises questions about the media’s role in reporting on allegations against public figures. While the network’s statement confirmed its access to documents related to the case, the absence of tangible evidence pertaining to the alleged assault may impact public perception of the credibility of Carroll’s claims. This revelation underscores the importance of responsible journalism and the need for thorough fact-checking in sensitive cases.


The dismissal of E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan has dealt a significant blow to Carroll’s legal battle. The judge’s ruling, based on the interpretation of presidential immunity, has sparked debates about the accountability of public officials for their personal actions. Additionally, CNN’s involvement in the case, as revealed through its statements, adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing discourse surrounding the allegations. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, it remains crucial to strike a balance between protecting individuals’ reputations and ensuring accountability for potential wrongdoings.

Scroll to Top