Trump Must Face Accusations of ‘Apprentice’ Contestant

NEW YORK — A New York state judge ruled Tuesday that a defamation lawsuit brought by a woman who has said President Donald Trump made unwanted sexual advances could go forward, raising the possibility of a public airing of other allegations of sexual misconduct against the president.

The decision by Justice Jennifer Schecter of state Supreme Court in Manhattan paved the way for lawyers to seek depositions from several women who accused Trump of sexual harassment before he was elected and to subpoena Trump campaign records related to his female accusers.

Schecter rejected Trump’s argument that a state court has no jurisdiction over a sitting president. She cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed Paula Jones to bring a sexual harassment suit against President Bill Clinton.

“No one is above the law,” Schecter wrote. “It is settled that the president of the United States has no immunity and is ‘subject to the laws’ for purely private acts.”

The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Summer Zervos, is a former contestant on Trump’s show “The Apprentice.” In her complaint, she said Trump defamed her during the 2016 presidential campaign by repeatedly describing her accounts, and those of other accusers, as “total lies” and “made up nonsense to steal the election” — potentially for fame or financial gain.

Besides arguing that the president could not be sued in state court under the Supremacy Clause, Trump’s lawyer, Marc E. Kasowitz, had argued that Trump’s comments about the women, made during a hard-fought election, amounted to political speech protected under the First Amendment. He also had argued that Zervos was not held up to the level of ridicule or contempt necessary to prove defamation.

Schecter disagreed. She said Trump’s comments about Zervos telling “phony stories” could be construed as defamatory, suggesting she “is contemptible because she ‘fabricated’ events for personal gain.”

Zervos’ suit was being closely watched by other women who came forward during the presidential race with accusations against Trump. Some have said they would be willing to give depositions in the case.

During the campaign, more than 10 women made allegations against Trump ranging from unwanted touching to sexual assault. Most of them spoke out after the release of an “Access Hollywood” recording on which he bragged about kissing and groping women without their consent.

“The rule of law and sound reason have prevailed today,” one of Zervos’ lawyers, Mariann Wang, said. “We are grateful for the opportunity to prove that that defendant falsely branded Zervos a phony for telling the truth about his unwanted sexual groping.”

It remained unclear if Trump would appeal the ruling. Kasowitz did not respond Tuesday to email and voicemail messages.

Zervos first came forward with her story in October 2016. She said Trump had kissed and groped her without her consent on two occasions in 2007, once during a job interview at his New York office and again during a later business meeting at a Los Angeles hotel.

That day, Trump denied he had greeted her inappropriately. Over the following days, he released a barrage of vehement denials about the allegations from Zervos and nine other women, calling them fabrications, lies and hoaxes.

Zervos filed suit two months after the election, asserting she had been “debased and denigrated” by Trump’s comments. She is represented by Wang and Gloria Allred, who has represented several women who have accused high-profile men of sexual wrongdoing.

From the start, Allred made it plain that the goal of the suit, beyond economic damages, was to compel Trump to admit that he lied when he said Zervos fabricated her allegation.

Trump’s lawyers, led by Kasowitz, mounted a full-court defense, arguing the suit should be dismissed as meritless, or should be halted until Trump leaves office. Kasowitz argued that the courts have repeatedly interpreted the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution to mean a state court cannot exert control over a president while he is in office.

Schecter, however, said the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed Jones to bring a sexual harassment suit against Clinton while he was in office made it clear that the president could be sued for unofficial conduct, though Jones’ civil rights claim was in federal court.

The judge reasoned that “the rule is no different for suits commenced in state court” as long as the suit concerns the president’s unofficial conduct. Nothing in the supremacy clause, she wrote, says a president cannot be called to account in state court for conduct not related to his federal responsibilities.

She also rejected the assertion that the lawsuit should be postponed because it would interfere with Trump’s ability to do his job. She noted the state court could not compel the president to take any official action. She also said putting off the suit until Trump leaves office could not be justified on the ground that the president might have to deal with an international crisis. “If and when he does, of course, important federal responsibilities will take precedent,” she said.

Regarding the merits of the case, Schecter said Trump’s repeated claims that his female accusers were liars could be construed as defamation under New York law.