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

United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less
Bill of Rights
Happy 230th birthday, Bill of Rights
leezsnow/Getty Images

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the first of three parts exploring “Article the First,” the forgotten proposal in the original Bill of Rights. For 237 years, a single, inverted word has created a “semantic illusion,” leading historians and policymakers to misread the founders' intended guarantee of a growing House as a ceiling. This series uncovers the error, tracks its consequences, and explores why reclaiming the founders’ original vision is the path to meaningful representation reform.

Part 1 — The Inverted Word

Keep ReadingShow less