Donald J. Trump v. E. Jean Carroll

In United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477, 490- 491 (1979), this Court held that a Member of Congress cannot be found to have forfeited or waived legislative immunity absent an “explicit and unequivocal renunciation,” “assuming [waiver] is possible” at all. This case concerns Presidential immunity, a parallel immunity that similarly protects the separation of powers. Here, in his initial answer, President Trump asserted his “immunities . . . under the Constitution.” The President then repeatedly invoked Presidential immunity by name throughout the case, including in his answer to the amended complaint and his motion for summary judgment. The first question presented is: Whether a President can be found to have forfeited or waived Presidential immunity without ever expressly renouncing such immunity, solely because his first responsive pleading did not invoke Presidential immunity by name.

Whether a sitting President’s public statements defending his fitness for office by denying allegations of wrongdoing, made from the White House in response to press inquiries, are official acts protected by Presidential immunity under Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024).

Whether the United States should have been substituted as defendant under the Westfall Act after the Attorney General re-certified that President Trump was acting within the scope of his office in making the challenged statements from the White House in response to press inquiries.