Presidential immunity is not absolute—and President Trump should not be able to use it to shield himself from a defamation lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll. Joseph Cammarata, partner at Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, made this argument forcefully in a Business Wire statement, drawing on his groundbreaking Supreme Court precedent from Clinton v. Jones. When the Department of Justice argued that Trump was acting in an official capacity and therefore protected by presidential immunity, Cammarata rejected the claim with a fundamental principle of American justice: “In our country we don’t have kings, we don’t have royalty and we don’t have people who get a special privilege or pass because of their position, power or money.”
The critical distinction is between actions taken in an official capacity (which may receive immunity protection) and personal conduct that merely benefits from a person’s position. Trump’s statements about Carroll—calling her a liar, suggesting she fabricated her allegations for political reasons—served only Trump’s personal interests, not the interests of the United States government. Cammarata argued these were “vile, vicious” personal attacks motivated by protecting Trump’s reputation, not by executing presidential duties. The Supreme Court’s decision in Clinton v. Jones, where Cammarata successfully argued for Paula Jones’s right to sue President Clinton for sexual harassment, established that sitting presidents are not categorically immune from civil lawsuits based on personal conduct. That precedent directly applies here: if a sitting president cannot use immunity to block a sexual harassment lawsuit, he cannot use it to block a defamation lawsuit based on personal statements made in personal interest.
The principle matters: no one—regardless of position or power—should receive blanket immunity from accountability for personal misconduct. For defamation or civil rights matters, contact us to discuss your case.
