Summer Zervos Defamation Lawsuit: Presidential Immunity Challenge and Withdrawal Without Compensation
Tier 1Withdrawn2017-01-17 to 2021-11-12
Factual Summary
Summer Zervos, a contestant on Season 5 of The Apprentice, accused Donald Trump of sexual assault in October 2016, alleging that Trump groped and kissed her without consent during a 2007 meeting at the Beverly Hills Hotel in Los Angeles. Zervos came forward alongside several other women who made similar allegations in the weeks following the release of the Access Hollywood tape. Trump publicly denied the allegations and called Zervos and the other accusers liars, stating at a rally: "Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign."
On January 17, 2017, three days before Trump's inauguration, Zervos filed a defamation lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court, alleging that Trump's public statements calling her a liar were defamatory and caused her harm. The case was Zervos v. Trump, Index No. 150522/2017.
Trump's legal team moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that a sitting president is immune from civil lawsuits in state court. His attorneys argued that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution barred state courts from exercising jurisdiction over the president while in office, and that the litigation would impermissibly burden the president's ability to carry out his constitutional duties.
On March 14, 2019, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, ruled unanimously that Trump's presidential immunity claim did not shield him from the lawsuit, holding that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Clinton v. Jones (1997) established that a sitting president is not immune from civil litigation arising from unofficial conduct. Trump appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
Before the Court of Appeals ruled on the merits of the immunity question, Trump left office in January 2021. On March 30, 2021, the Court of Appeals dismissed Trump's appeal as moot, holding that the immunity question he raised no longer applied because he was no longer a sitting president. The case was returned to the trial court for proceedings.
On November 12, 2021, Zervos voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit. Her attorney stated that Zervos "stands by the allegations in her complaint" and that she had "accepted no compensation" in connection with the withdrawal. The stated reason for the withdrawal was that the prolonged litigation during the Trump presidency had created an extended burden that Zervos chose not to continue.
Primary Sources
1. Zervos v. Trump, Index No. 150522/2017, New York State Supreme Court, filed January 17, 2017
2. Zervos v. Trump, New York Appellate Division, First Department, March 14, 2019: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-first-department/2019/150522-17-7610.html
3. New York Court of Appeals, dismissal of Trump's appeal as moot, March 30, 2021
Corroborating Sources
1. Washington Post: "Summer Zervos's lawsuit against Trump can resume, court says," March 30, 2021
2. ABC News: "Summer Zervos drops defamation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump," November 12, 2021
3. Courthouse News Service: "Trump accuser settles defamation case without compensation," November 2021
4. CNN: "Court pauses Summer Zervos' defamation lawsuit against Trump, delaying deposition," January 2020
Counterarguments and Context
Trump denied all allegations of sexual misconduct made by Zervos and characterized the lawsuit as politically motivated. His legal team argued that the defamation claims were based on constitutionally protected political speech and that Trump's denials of the allegations were not actionable as defamation. The presidential immunity argument, while rejected by two levels of New York courts, raised a constitutional question that had not been directly addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the specific context of state court jurisdiction over a sitting president. The withdrawal of the case without compensation was cited by Trump supporters as evidence that the claims lacked merit, while Zervos's attorneys emphasized that the withdrawal was not a settlement and that she continued to stand by her allegations.
Author's Note
This entry is classified as Tier 1 because the case produced multiple adjudicated rulings, including the appellate court's rejection of the presidential immunity defense and the Court of Appeals' mootness determination. The withdrawal of the case before a trial on the underlying defamation claims means the factual allegations were never adjudicated. The legal significance of the case lies in the New York courts' holdings on presidential immunity in state proceedings.