NEW YORK —

Former President Donald Trump's claims that absolute presidential immunity and free speech rights shield him from the defamation claims of a New York columnist were rejected Thursday by a federal judge.

The writer, E. Jean Carroll, can continue to press claims that Trump owes her at least $10 million in damages for comments he made before and after she won a $5 million sexual abuse and defamation verdict against him last month, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan said in a written opinion.

Trump tried to dismiss the lawsuit on grounds that he is entitled to absolute presidential immunity, his statements were not defamatory and that his statements were opinion protected by free speech rights.

Kaplan said Trump surrendered absolute presidential immunity as a defense by failing to assert it years ago when the lawsuit was filed. The lawsuit was delayed until recently as appeals courts considered legal issues surrounding it.

Trump countersued Carroll this week, claiming that she has libeled him by continuing to insist that he raped her even after a jury found otherwise.

After a jury returned its verdict last month in Manhattan federal court, Trump made comments on a CNN town hall that prompted Carroll to assert new defamation claims in a 2020 defamation lawsuit.

The jury award resulted from a sexual abuse and defamation lawsuit filed last November after New York state temporarily enacted a law allowing sexual assault victims to sue for damages resulting from attacks that occurred even decades earlier.

Trump's claims in the CNN broadcast mirrored statements he made while president in 2019 when Carroll published a memoir in which she claimed Trump raped her in the dressing room of a luxury midtown Manhattan department store in spring 1996.

Within hours of excerpts from the book being published in a magazine, Trump denied a rape occurred or that he ever knew Carroll.

"Mr. Trump did not merely deny Ms. Carroll's accusation of sexual assault," Kaplan wrote. "Instead, he accused Ms. Carroll of lying about him sexually assaulting her in order to increase sales of her book, gain publicity, and/or carry out a political agenda."

The judge said the main purpose of presidential immunity was to avoid diverting the president from public duties, but it was not a "get-out-of-damages-liability-free card that permits the president to say or do anything he or she desires even if that conduct is disconnected entirely from an official function."

Kaplan said he took into consideration that Carroll is now 79 years old and has pursued claims against Trump for 3 1/2 years.

"There is no basis to risk prolonging the resolution of this litigation further by permitting Mr. Trump to raise his absolute immunity defense now at the eleventh hour when he could have done so years ago," he said.

In rejecting claims that Carroll's lawsuit was about protected speech, Kaplan explained how libel and slander are handled in the courts and why Trump's statements could be construed to fit the legal definition for defamation, including that a jury had already found it so.

Trump's lawyers did not immediately comment.

Attorney Robbie Kaplan, who represents Carroll and is unrelated to the judge, said in a statement that the judge's ruling "confirms that once again, Donald Trump's supposed defenses to E. Jean Carroll's defamation claims don't work."

She added: "Today's decision removes one more impediment to the January 15 trial on E Jean's defamation damages in this case."

The Associated Press typically does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll has done.

A federal judge in Texas on Friday ordered a hold on U.S. approval of the abortion medication mifepristone, throwing into question access to the nation’s most common method of abortion in a ruling that waved aside decades of scientific approval.

The immediate impact of the ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, which does not go into immediate effect, was unclear.

The abortion drug has been widely used in the U.S. since 2000 and there is essentially no precedent for a lone judge overruling the medical decisions of the Food and Drug Administration. Mifepristone is one of two drugs used for medication abortion in the United States, along with misoprostol, which is also used to treat other medical conditions.

Kacsmaryk, a Trump administration appointee in Amarillo, Texas, signed an injunction directing the FDA to stay mifepristone’s approval while a lawsuit challenging the safety and approval of the drug continues. His 67-page order gave the government seven days to appeal.

“Simply put, FDA stonewalled judicial review — until now,” Kacsmaryk wrote.

He didn’t go as far as the plaintiffs wanted by withdrawing or suspending the approval of the chemical abortion drug and removing it from the list of approved drugs. But he put a “stay” or hold on approval of the drug.

Federal lawyers representing the FDA are expected to swiftly appeal.

Clinics and doctors that prescribe the two-drug combination have said that if mifepristone were pulled from the market, they would switch to using only the second drug, misoprostol. That single-drug approach has a slightly lower rate of effectiveness in ending pregnancies, but it is widely used in countries where mifepristone is illegal or unavailable.

Mifepristone is part of a two-drug regimen that has long been the standard for medication abortion in the U.S. Clinics and doctors that prescribe the combination say they plan to switch to using only misoprostol. The single-drug approach is slightly less effective at ending pregnancies.

The lawsuit was filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which was also involved in the Mississippi case that led to Roe v. Wade being overturned. At the core of the lawsuit is the allegation that the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone was flawed because it did not adequately review its safety risks.

Courts have long deferred to the FDA on issues of drug safety and effectiveness. But the agency’s authority faces new challenges in a post-Roe legal environment in which abortions are banned or unavailable in 14 states, while 16 states have laws specifically targeting abortion medications.

Related video above: Russian skater Kamila Valieva finishes fourth

The U.S. figure skaters whose Olympic silver medals are being withheld have filed an appeal to have them awarded before the end of the Beijing Games, with a decision expected as soon as Saturday night.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport confirmed to The Associated Press that it was hearing the case Saturday evening in Beijing and expected a rapid ruling.

In a letter sent to IOC president Thomas Bach, a copy of which was obtained by AP, attorneys for the skaters said they sought a ruling before Sunday's closing ceremony.

Kamila Valieva led the Russian team to a victory in last week’s team event, and the U.S. finished second. Soon after, a positive doping test for the 15-year-old skater was disclosed. CAS allowed her to continue skating at the women's event, but the International Olympic Committee said it would not award medals in any events in which she finished among the top three.

She finished fourth in the women's event — crying as she left the ice, then criticized by her coach after a mistake-filled long program.

This case involves the team event held the previous week. The Russians won the event by a large margin. Japan was third and Canada finished fourth.

The letter sent on behalf of the American runners-up says the IOC's “own rules mandate that a victory ceremony ‘to present medals to the athletes shall follow the conclusion of each sports event.’"

In a meeting earlier this week with the skaters, Bach offered them Olympic torches as something of a holdover memento while the doping case, which could take months, or even years, plays out.

In their letter to Bach, the attorneys said they hoped the IOC would reconsider but that because of the urgency, they were filing the appeal.

U.S. Figure Skating executive director Ramsey Baker sent the AP a statement standing in support of the skaters.

“Having a medal ceremony at an Olympic Games is not something that can be replicated anywhere else, and they should be celebrated in front of the world before leaving Beijing,” Baker said.

The letter to Bach, sent by attorney Paul Greene, who represents athletes in doping and other cases against Olympic authorities, said the IOC president had asked the athletes for their input.

“A dignified medal ceremony from our clients’ vantage point is one in the Medals Plaza as originally planned and afforded to all other medalists,” he wrote.

After Valieva's test became public, Russia's anti-doping agency at first put her on provisional suspension, then lifted the suspension. That triggered the IOC and World Anti-Doping Agency to lead an appeal to CAS, which acted swiftly and said Valieva could still compete.

That did not resolve the larger question about the result from the team competition.

Nine Americans stand to get some sort of medal out of that — either the second-place prize they're aiming to receive this weekend, or a gold that could become theirs if the Russian's are disqualified because of Valieva's doping case.

Because she is 15, Valieva is considered a “protected person” under anti-doping rules, and is not expected to receive a harsh penalty. Her coaches and doctors are being investigated by Russian and world anti-doping authorities.

___

AP Sports Writer Graham Dunbar contributed to this report.

OKLAHOMA CITY — The U.S. Supreme Court lifted stays of execution on Thursday of two men in Oklahoma.

The stays of executions came only two hours ahead of the scheduled execution of death row inmate John Grant.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday to temporarily delay the first two executions in Oklahoma since 2015, but the state appealed to the Supreme Court to lift the delay.

Grant is scheduled to be executed at 4 p.m. Thursday.

He and other prisoners are challenging the state's lethal-injection procedure despite the upcoming scheduled executions.

Grant has initially been serving time for armed robbery charges when he stabbed and killed Gay Carter, a 58-year-old Dick Conner Correctional Center employee, in 1998.

He was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 2000.

According to the Associated Press, his execution date was delayed after a botched lethal injection left an inmate writhing in pain on a gurney in 2014 and a mix-up in drugs in 2015.

Those mistakes drew wide criticism on the process, and the Oklahoma Department of Corrections put executions on hold.

After a six-year hiatus, ODOC recently announced the agency is preparing to resume executions again after taking time to make sure policies and practices are handled humanely and correctly.

Steps are being taken to make sure the process works as intended.

According to the Associated Press, the court also lifted the stay for Julius Jones, who is on death row for the shooting death of Edmond businessman Paul Howell in 1999.

Jones is scheduled for execution on Nov. 18.

Ryan Love at KJRH first reported this story.