Latest news with #2ndCircuit
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump seeks to delay appeal of $83 million judgment in E. Jean Carroll case
The Justice Department and attorneys for President Donald Trump on Friday asked a federal appeals court in New York to delay oral arguments scheduled for next week in Trump's appeal of his $83 million defamation case. Trump is appealing a 2024 verdict ordering him to pay former magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll $83 million for defaming her in 2019 when he denied her accusation that he sexually assaulted her in the dressing room of a Bergdorf Goodman department store in the mid-1990s. Trump has denied all allegations. MORE: Appeals court says DOJ cannot represent Trump in appeal of E. Jean Carroll case On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Trump's attempt to have the government substitute for him as a party in the case -- and his attorneys now argue that they should be allowed to appeal before oral arguments take place on June 24. "The United States and President Trump are entitled to immediate review of the panel's erroneous Westfall Act decision by this Court en banc and, if necessary, by the Supreme Court," a joint filing from Trump and the Justice Department said Friday. DOJ lawyers say that since some of Trump's alleged conduct in the case fell within the scope of his role as president, the Justice Department should be able to defend him in court. "The Attorney General certified that President Trump was acting within the scope of his federal office or employment at the time of his 2017 statements, made from the White House, out of which Plaintiff-Appellee's claims arose. As a result, the United States should have been substituted as a defendant in place of President Trump," they argued in Friday's filing. The 2nd Circuit last week upheld a separate, $5 million damage award to Carroll that Trump must pay.
The Hill
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Appeals court won't let Justice Department step in for Trump in E. Jean Carroll's $83M verdict
A federal appeals court panel on Wednesday refused the Justice Department's effort to put itself on the hook for an $83.3 million defamation award advice columnist E. Jean Carroll won at trial from President Trump. It's the latest setback for the president in his efforts to fight Carroll's lawsuits at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Last week, the 2nd Circuit upheld her earlier $5 million jury award. On Wednesday, the three-judge panel denied the Justice Department's request to replace Trump as the defendant in Carroll's defamation lawsuit under the Westfall Act, a 1988 law that protects federal employees from certain lawsuits concerning things they did in the course of their jobs. The Justice Department contended Trump's denials of Carroll's sexual assault claims in a written statement and comments he made on the White House South Lawn in 2019 — the basis of her suit — were made within the scope of Trump's employment as president. 'The Court will issue an opinion detailing its reasoning in due course,' reads the 2nd Circuit's one-page order rejecting the effort without further explanation. The three-judge panel comprised Judge Denny Chin, an appointee of former President Obama; Judge Sarah Merriam, an appointee of former President Biden; and Judge Maria Araújo Kahn, another Biden appointee. 'The American People are supporting President Trump in historic numbers, and they demand an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded Carroll Hoaxes, the defense of which is legally required to be taken over by the Department of Justice as that charade is fully based on the President's official acts,' a spokesperson for Trump's legal team said in a statement. The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department as well as Carroll's legal team for comment. Wednesday's ruling is the latest setback for the president at the 2nd Circuit, where he has appealed both jury awards Carroll won after coming forward during Trump's presidency with claims he sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. Trump continues to deny her story. In the first trial, a jury found Trump liable for sexually assaulting Carroll and defaming her by denying her claims. Trump was ordered to pay $5 million. The full 2nd Circuit bench rejected Trump's appeal on Friday. The president's legal team has vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court next. Wednesday's decision concerned the second trial, in which Carroll last year won an $83.3 million judgment from a separate jury over additional denials Trump made of the columnist's claims, which were also ruled defamatory. Since Trump retook the presidency, his Justice Department has sought to leverage the Westfall Act to step in for the president, which would mean he wouldn't have to pay the damages and instead leave the government on the hook. It's a return to the Justice Department's position during Trump's first term, when it tried to step in near the onset of Carroll's lawsuit. The gambit tied up the case in pretrial proceedings for years, only for the Biden-era Justice Department to drop the effort in 2023. The 2nd Circuit's ruling comes ahead of oral arguments scheduled for Tuesday, when the three-judge panel will hear Trump's appeal of the jury verdict itself.
CNN
5 days ago
- Business
- CNN
Supreme Court declines to hear copyright appeal that alleged Ed Sheeran copied Marvin Gaye song
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a copyright suit against pop star Ed Sheeran filed by a company that alleged his smash single 'Thinking Out Loud' copied the classic Marvin Gaye song 'Let's Get It On.' Sheeran has been fighting – and successfully defending against – different iterations of the lawsuit for years. In a related case, a jury in 2023 concluded that Sheeran's number, which won a Grammy in 2016, did not infringe on the copyright that was originally registered in 1973. By declining to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court left in place a decision from the New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals siding with Sheeran. The suit before the high court was filed by a company called Structured Asset Sales, which owned a one-ninth interest in the royalties from 'Let's Get It On,' Gaye's iconic Motown song. The question put to the justices was whether the appeals court gave too much deference to the US Copyright Office interpretation of the Copyright Act of 1909. The Supreme Court's conservative majority recently limited the circumstances under which courts are supposed to defer to interpretations of vague laws by federal agencies, overturning a 1984 precedent Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The Copyright Office concluded that the protections for the song were limited to the handwritten sheet music Gaye's co-writer, Ed Townsend, had submitted in the 1970s. Structured Asset Sales claimed that Sheeran's song copied elements of 'Let's Get It On,' like the drums and tempo. The company argued that the rights to many other songs were at stake in case. 'The rights of thousands of legacy musical composers and artists, of many of the most beloved and enduring pieces of popular music, are at the center of the controversy,' its attorneys told the Supreme Court. But Sheeran's lawyers countered, among other things, that the sheet music submitted did not indicate a tempo. They also argued that the text of the copyright law is clear and didn't require courts to defer to the Copyright Office's interpretation.
CNN
5 days ago
- Business
- CNN
Supreme Court declines to hear copyright appeal that alleged Ed Sheeran copied Marvin Gaye song
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a copyright suit against pop star Ed Sheeran filed by a company that alleged his smash single 'Thinking Out Loud' copied the classic Marvin Gaye song 'Let's Get It On.' Sheeran has been fighting – and successfully defending against – different iterations of the lawsuit for years. In a related case, a jury in 2023 concluded that Sheeran's number, which won a Grammy in 2016, did not infringe on the copyright that was originally registered in 1973. By declining to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court left in place a decision from the New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals siding with Sheeran. The suit before the high court was filed by a company called Structured Asset Sales, which owned a one-ninth interest in the royalties from 'Let's Get It On,' Gaye's iconic Motown song. The question put to the justices was whether the appeals court gave too much deference to the US Copyright Office interpretation of the Copyright Act of 1909. The Supreme Court's conservative majority recently limited the circumstances under which courts are supposed to defer to interpretations of vague laws by federal agencies, overturning a 1984 precedent Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The Copyright Office concluded that the protections for the song were limited to the handwritten sheet music Gaye's co-writer, Ed Townsend, had submitted in the 1970s. Structured Asset Sales claimed that Sheeran's song copied elements of 'Let's Get It On,' like the drums and tempo. The company argued that the rights to many other songs were at stake in case. 'The rights of thousands of legacy musical composers and artists, of many of the most beloved and enduring pieces of popular music, are at the center of the controversy,' its attorneys told the Supreme Court. But Sheeran's lawyers countered, among other things, that the sheet music submitted did not indicate a tempo. They also argued that the text of the copyright law is clear and didn't require courts to defer to the Copyright Office's interpretation.
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Court Hands Trump Huge Blow in E. Jean Carroll Sex Abuse Case
A federal appeals court has rejected President Donald Trump's request to rehear a jury verdict in favor of E. Jean Carroll. The decision solidifies a judge's earlier decision that upheld his liability for sexually abusing and defaming the advice columnist. On Friday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan declined to reconsider its Dec. 30 ruling, which affirmed that Trump was responsible for both the sexual assault and resulting defamation. Biden-appointed U.S. Circuit Judge Myrna Pérez said after the 8-2 verdict: 'Simply re-litigating a case is not an appropriate use of the en banc procedure. 'In those rare instances in which a case warrants our collective consideration, it is almost always because it involves a question of exceptional importance or a conflict between the panel's opinion and appellate precedent.' The journalist alleged that the then-businessman sexually abused her in a Manhattan department store in the mid-90s. The $5 million award stems from a May 2023 civil verdict in which jurors found Trump had non-consensually touched Carroll and defamed her with his denials. She came forward with her story during Trump's first term as president. Trump's legal team argued the court had wrongly allowed evidence—including the 2005 Access Hollywood tape and testimonies from other women—into the trial. The two dissenting votes were from Trump-appointed 2nd Circuit judges, Steven Menashi and Michael Park. 'The result was a jury verdict based on impermissible character evidence and few reliable facts. No one can have any confidence that the jury would have returned the same verdict if the normal rules of evidence had been applied,' Menashi wrote. Three other available judges recused from voting without explaining their decision. Trump's team has also appealed a separate $83.3 million defamation judgment from Jan. 2024 and continues to argue that his social media denials are protected by presidential immunity. Trump has denied knowing Carroll and labeled her allegations as fabricated. The defamation case goes to a three-judge 2nd Circuit panel later this month. 'E. Jean Carroll is very pleased with today's decision,' Carroll and her attorney said in a joint statement. 'Although President Trump continues to try every possible maneuver to challenge the findings of two separate juries, those efforts have failed. He remains liable for sexual assault and defamation,' they continued.
