The following article by James C. McKinley, Jr., was posted on the New York Times website March 20, 2018:
A New York State judge ruled on Tuesday that a defamation lawsuit brought by a woman who has said President Trump made unwanted sexual advances could go forward, raising the possibility of a public airing of other allegations of sexual misconduct against the president.
The decision by Justice Jennifer Schecter of State Supreme Court in Manhattan paved the way for lawyers to seek depositions from several women who accused Mr. Trump of sexual harassment before he was elected and to subpoena Trump campaign records related to his female accusers.
Justice Schecter rejected Mr. Trump’s argument that a state court has no jurisdiction over a sitting president. She cited a United States Supreme Court ruling that allowed Paula Jones to bring a sexual harassment suit against President Bill Clinton.
“No one is above the law,” Justice Schecter wrote. “It is settled that the president of the United States has no immunity and is ‘subject to the laws’ for purely private acts.”
The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Summer Zervos, is a former contestant on Mr. Trump’s show “The Apprentice.” In her complaint, she said Mr. Trump defamed her during the 2016 presidential campaign by repeatedly describing her accounts, and those of other accusers, as “total lies” and “made-up nonsense to steal the election” — potentially for fame or financial gain.
Besides arguing that the president could not be sued in state court under the Supremacy Clause, Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Marc E. Kasowitz, had argued that Mr. Trump’s comments about the women, made during a hard-fought election, amounted to political speech protected under the First Amendment. He also had argued that Ms. Zervos was not held up to the level of ridicule or contempt necessary to prove defamation.
Justice Schecter disagreed. She said Mr. Trump’s comments about Ms. Zervos telling “phony stories” could be construed as defamatory, suggesting she “is contemptible because she ‘fabricated’ events for personal gain.”
Ms. Zervos’s suit was being closely watched by other women who came forward during the presidential race with accusations against Mr. Trump. Some have said they would be willing to give depositions in the case.
During the campaign, more than 10 women made allegations against Mr. Trump ranging from unwanted touching to sexual assault. Most of them spoke out after the release of an “Access Hollywood” recording on which he bragged about kissing and groping women without their consent.
“The rule of law and sound reason have prevailed today,” one of Ms. Zervos’s lawyers, Mariann Wang, said. “We are grateful for the opportunity to prove that that defendant falsely branded Ms. Zervos a phony for telling the truth about his unwanted sexual groping.”
It remained unclear if Mr. Trump would appeal the ruling. Mr. Kasowitz did not respond on Tuesday to email and voice mail messages.
Ms. Zervos first came forward with her story in October 2016. She said Mr. Trump had kissed and groped her without her consent on two occasions in 2007, once during a job interview at his New York office and again during a later business meeting at Los Angeles hotel.
That day, Mr. Trump denied he had greeted her inappropriately. Over the following days, he released a barrage of vehement denials about the allegations from Ms. Zervos and nine other women, calling them fabrications, lies and hoaxes.
Ms. Zervos filed suit two months after the election, asserting she had been “debased and denigrated” by Mr. Trump’s comments. She is represented by Ms. Wang and Gloria Allred, who has represented several women who have accused high-profile men of sexual wrongdoing.
From the start, Ms. Allred made it plain that the goal of the suit, beyond economic damages, was to compel Mr. Trump to admit that he lied when he said Ms. Zervos fabricated her allegation.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers, led by Mr. Kasowitz, mounted a full-court defense, arguing the suit should be dismissed as meritless, or should be halted until Mr. Trump leaves office. Mr. Kasowitz argued that the courts have repeatedly interpreted the supremacy clause of the Constitution to mean a state court cannot exert control over a president while he is in office.
Justice Schecter, however, said the United States Supreme Court ruling that allowed Ms. Jones to bring a sexual harassment suit against Mr. Clinton while he was in office made it clear that the president could be sued for unofficial conduct, though Ms. Jones’s civil rights claim was in federal court.
The judge reasoned that “the rule is no different for suits commenced in state court” as long as the suit concerns the president’s unofficial conduct. Nothing in the supremacy clause, she wrote, says a president cannot be called to account in state court for conduct not related to his federal responsibilities.
She also rejected the assertion the lawsuit should be postponed because it would interfere with Mr. Trump’s ability to do his job. She noted the state court could not compel the president to take any official action. She also said putting off the suit until Mr. Trump leaves office could not be justified on the ground the president might have to deal with an international crisis. “If and when he does, of course, important federal responsibilities will take precedent,” she said.
Regarding the merits of the case, Justice Schecter said Mr. Trump’s repeated claims that his female accusers were liars could be construed as defamation under New York law.
View the post here.