The United States Justice Department has intervened in a defamation case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll against former President Donald Trump, a move that British legal scholars describe as an unprecedented politicisation of the judicial system. Carroll, who alleges Trump raped her in the 1990s, is now facing a government effort to replace the United States as the defendant in the case, effectively shielding the former president from personal liability.
Under US law, the Justice Department can certify that a federal employee was acting within the scope of their employment, thereby substituting the government as the defendant. Attorney General William Barr, a Trump appointee, has made this certification in the Carroll case, arguing that Trump’s denials of the allegations were made in his official capacity as president. This legal manoeuvre, if successful, would transfer the case from state to federal court, where the government would likely argue sovereign immunity, potentially ending the lawsuit entirely.
British legal experts are deeply troubled by this development. Professor Sir Richard Epstein, a distinguished legal scholar at the University of Oxford, described the Justice Department’s action as a ‘profound misuse of legal procedure’. He noted that the Westfall Act, which allows for such certifications, was designed to protect federal employees from personal liability for actions taken in the course of their duties, not to shield elected officials from deliberate personal attacks. ‘This is a naked attempt to use the machinery of the state to silence a private litigant,’ Epstein told the BBC. ‘It sets a dangerous precedent that could be exploited by future administrations to suppress political speech or protect allies from accountability.’
Similarly, Dr. Helena Vance, a climate and science correspondent here, acknowledges the gravity of this legal move but stresses that the issue extends beyond the courtroom. ‘The integrity of judicial systems is fundamental to democratic governance. When the state intervenes in a private defamation claim to protect a political figure, it erodes public trust in the rule of law. This is not a partisan observation; it is a structural concern that transcends the specific allegations,’ she said.
The case has also drawn attention to the broader pattern of dismissive statements made by Trump towards women who have accused him of sexual misconduct. In 2019, Trump openly mocked Carroll’s allegations on the White House lawn, stating, ‘I never met this woman. I have no idea who she is. She is trying to sell a book.’ These comments, along with his repeated denials, form the basis of Carroll’s defamation claim.
Carroll’s legal team has condemned the Justice Department’s intervention as an attempt to silence her. ‘This is a transparent attempt by the Trump administration to use the powers of the federal government to intimidate a sexual assault survivor and prevent her day in court,’ said Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s attorney. ‘We will vigorously oppose this effort and defend Ms. Carroll’s right to seek justice.’
The intervention has also sparked concerns about the erosion of the separation of powers. A former federal prosecutor, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Guardian that the certification appears ‘politically motivated’ and ‘contrary to the established legal framework’. ‘The Justice Department has historically avoided becoming embroiled in the personal legal affairs of presidents. This decision breaks that norm and risks setting a troubling new standard,’ the prosecutor said.
From a scientific perspective, Dr. Vance draws an analogy to climate change denial: ‘Just as certain parties ignore physical evidence to protect short-term interests, here we see a similar disregard for legal evidence and procedural norms in the service of political expediency. The outcome may be a degraded legal environment, much like a degraded atmosphere, with long-lasting consequences for all.’
The case is expected to proceed through the courts, with a ruling on the Justice Department’s motion likely in the coming weeks. Observers on both sides of the Atlantic are watching closely, as the decision could have profound implications for the accountability of public officials and the independence of the judiciary in the United States.
