Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Claim: Justice Department can run Trump’s defense in defamation lawsuit. Fact check: True

Attorney General William Barr

Attorney General William Barr

Kamil Krzaczynski/Getty Images
"The case law is crystal clear that the Westfall Act applies claims against the president, the vice president, as well as other federal employees and members of Congress. ... When you're answering questions in office, even about personal affairs, any defamation claim is subject to Westfall. So this was a normal application of the law." — Attorney General Attorney William Barr speaking at a press conference in Chicago on Wednesday

During a press conference in Chicago on Wednesday, Attorney General William Barr said the Department of Justice could take over as President Trump's defense team in the defamation lawsuit brought against him by journalist E. Jean Carroll, citing the Westfall Act.

Barr's office is claiming that Trump was acting in his capacity as president of the United States when he called Carroll a liar and therefore is protected under the Westfall Act, which gives federal employees immunity from claims like defamation during their service.


"I gather that the claim will be that part of Trump's professional duties is answering questions at press conferences, and that his alleged defamation was done in the scope of his employment, so Respondeat Superior applies," Northwestern University legal professor Andrew Koppelman said. This would remove the case from the New York court system, which had just rejected Trump's request for a delay and was about to require he provide a DNA sample and an interview under oath.

Now a federal judge will need to determine whether to grant the request to make the U.S. government a defendant in the case. The lawsuit stems from 2019, when Trump denied Carroll's claims that he raped her at a department store in the 1990s and said that she brought this allegation up to sell a book. Carroll filed a defamation lawsuit following those comments, claiming they damaged her reputation and career prospects.


Read More

NRF Moves to Defend Utah’s Fair Map Against Gerrymandering Lawsuit

USA Election Collage With The State Map Of Utah.

Getty Images

NRF Moves to Defend Utah’s Fair Map Against Gerrymandering Lawsuit

On Wednesday, February 11, the National Redistricting Foundation (NRF) asked a federal court to join a newly filed lawsuit to protect Utah’s new, fair congressional map and defend our system of checks and balances.

The NRF is a non‑profit foundation whose mission is to dismantle unfair electoral maps and create a redistricting system grounded in democratic values. By helping to create more just and representative electoral districts across the country, the organization aims to restore the public’s faith in a true representative democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Constitutional Provision We Ignored for 150 Years

Voter registration in Wisconsin

Michael Newman

A Constitutional Provision We Ignored for 150 Years

Imagine there was a way to discourage states from passing photo voter ID laws, restricting early voting, purging voter registration rolls, or otherwise suppressing voter turnout. What if any state that did so risked losing seats in the House of Representatives?

Surprisingly, this is not merely an idle fantasy of voting rights activists, but an actual plan envisioned in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 – but never enforced.

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma

Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.

How the Deal Was Framed

Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

View of the Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

Getty Images, Philippe Debled

The City Where Traffic Fatalities Vanished

A U.S. city of 60,000 people would typically see around six to eight traffic fatalities every year. But Hoboken, New Jersey? They haven’t had a single fatal crash for nine years — since January 17, 2017, to be exact.

Campaigns for seatbelts, lower speed limits and sober driving have brought national death tolls from car crashes down from a peak in the first half of the 20th century. However, many still assume some traffic deaths as an unavoidable cost of car culture.

Keep ReadingShow less