Courts Rule On 3 Trump Cases

Judge Rules That Trump Rape Accuser E. Jean Carroll Can Go Ahead With Defamation Suit

A woman who alleges she was raped by President Donald Trump years ago can proceed with her defamation lawsuit against him, a New York judge has ruled. 

Trump had sought to delay the lawsuit from journalist E. Jean Carroll, who alleges the president defamed her when he said she was “totally lying” about the alleged rape. But Verna L. Saunders, a New York Supreme Court justice, wrote that Carroll’s lawsuit could move forward without delay. Carroll’s legal team can now proceed with its aim of acquiring Trump’s DNA, which they intend to compare to genetic material on the dress Carroll says she was wearing during the incident. 

The legal team also wants to interview Trump under oath, according to The Washington Post. Carroll alleges Trump raped her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s—a claim the president has denied. Trump’s legal team is still able to appeal Saunders’ ruling.

Daily Beast

Court rules House Democrats can sue Trump over U.S.-Mexico border wall funding

MSN-The Hill

In a 7-2 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that lawmakers have the legal right to sue the administration over a financing maneuver that a separate California-based federal appeals court found to be an illegal encroachment of Congress’s power of the purse.

The Friday ruling was seen as an endorsement of Congress’s right to pursue legal action to enforce its authority over federal appropriations. But it is unclear what practical effect it would have if Democrats ultimately prevail in their lawsuit.

The Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to continue using the defense funds amid ongoing litigation, despite the California-based court’s ruling that the scheme is unconstitutional.

MSN-The Hill

Appeals court rules against Trump, says House can sue to enforce McGahn subpoena

“The Constitution charges Congress with certain responsibilities, including to legislate, to conduct oversight of the federal government, and, when necessary, to impeach and remove a President or other Executive Branch official from office,” Judge Judith Rogers wrote in the majority opinion. “Possession of relevant information is an essential precondition to the effective discharge of all of those duties.”

Although the ruling is a clear victory for congressional Democrats, it does not mean that McGahn will be sitting for testimony anytime soon. The majority decision did not address the Trump administration’s claim that White House officials are immune to congressional subpoena, so even if McGahn does not appeal the ruling, the two sides will still have more to litigate before the D.C. Circuit.

The Hill

About Surley 419 Articles
No hell below us, Above us only sky, Get over it