The advice columnist who says President Trump sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s says she is “very glad” she published her accusation, even as the president denied her story on Saturday and claimed he had “no idea who she is.”

E. Jean Carroll spoke to NPR’s Lulu Garcia-Navarro on Weekend Edition. She reiterated that Trump assaulted her in the ’90s.

“It hurt. And it was against my will,” she said.

Trump on Saturday doubled down on his denial and claimed that women have been paid to accuse him of wrongdoing.

“Women were actually paid money to say bad things about me,” Trump told reporters outside the White House. “But here’s a case, it’s an absolute disgrace that she’s allowed to do that.”

Carroll first detailed the incident in a book excerpt published on Friday in New York magazine.

Carroll said the incident happened when the two met by chance at the upscale department store Bergdorf Goodman in New York City. She says he told her, “Hey, you’re that advice lady,” and she replied, “Hey, you’re that real estate mogul,” and then he asked for her help in choosing a present for “a girl.”

At first, Carroll told NPR, “I thought it was just charming, you know, he wants my advice on buying a present.”

Carroll said the encounter took a turn when she asked how old the girl was, and Trump asked Carroll how old she was.

“And of course I told him my actual age, which is 52. And he said ‘Oh, you’re so old,’ ” she recalled to NPR.

Then, Carroll claims, Trump asked her to try on a see-through bodysuit in the lingerie department. She said she joked that he should try it on instead.

“And that’s where I got into trouble, because we went into the dressing room and he closed the door and that was it,” she said.

She said “it was a very short incident” and that “to me it’s just disrespectful to say, to use the word rape, although it hurt and it was against my will.”

Carroll said that she called a friend after the incident but did not tell the police.

“I had adrenaline pouring through my body,” she said. “The idea that anyone, including me, could make a decision at that point about going to the police … that was almost a second assault on my brain.”

When Carroll published the excerpt from her book in New York magazine, the president responded, writing: “I’ve never met this person in my life. She is trying to sell a new book — that should indicate her motivation. It should be sold in the fiction section.”

New York undercut the president’s claim about never meeting Carroll with a photograph depicting him talking to her at a party in New York.

Reporters asked Trump about the picture Saturday. He replied, “standing with my coat on in a line, give me a break.”

Trump compared himself to Brett Kavanaugh, who withstood assault allegations during his confirmation hearings to become a Supreme Court justice.

“When you look at what happened to Justice Kavanaugh, and you look at what’s happening to others, you can’t do that for the sake of publicity,” Trump said Saturday.

More than a dozen women accused Trump of sexual wrongdoing before he took office. Carroll said she did not come forward with her story before the 2016 elections because “there were so many women coming forward. … I didn’t think it was my duty.”

Carroll’s book, due out in July, details attacks by people on what she calls the “Most Hideous Men of My Life List.” The list includes the former CEO of CBS, Les Moonves. He was ousted last year amid similar allegations. Moonves denied Carroll’s claims to New York.

Carroll told NPR she decided to publish these accusations in a book because she is a writer.

“My natural mode is to take pen to paper and write about whatever it is I want to write about, and my natural mode is to put it in a book,” she said.

She said she changed her mind about coming forward because over the past two years, many readers sent in letters about their own experience with sexual assault.

“I just felt like I was not being a real, you know, I was holding something back,” she said. “And I just decided because I love my readers, I thought well, OK, I’m going to tell them, this is what happened to me.”

A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that property owners can go directly to federal court with claims that state and local regulations effectively deprive landowners of the use of their property.

The 5-4 decision overturned decades of precedent that barred property owners from going to federal court until their claims had been denied in state court.

Federal courts are often viewed as friendlier than state courts for such property claims. The decision, with all five of the court’s conservatives in the majority, may have particular effects in cities and coastal areas that have strict regulations for development.

Property owners and developers often have complained that zoning rules and other state and local regulations effectively take their property for public benefit, and that the Constitution requires that they be paid just compensation.

The court’s decision came in the case of Rose Mary Knick, who owns 90 acres of land in Scott Township, Pa. Knick’s home and a grazing area for her horses are on the land, as well as a small cemetery where her neighbors’ ancestors are allegedly buried.

When the town enacted a rule requiring all cemeteries be open to the public during daytime hours, Knick went to state court seeking a judgment that the state had in effect taken her property. When the town withdrew its notice that she was violating the local cemetery law, the state court said Knick could not prove that she was being harmed.

So, she went to the federal courts, which threw out her case based on decades-old Supreme Court decisions that have consistently required property owners to go to the state courts before appealing to the federal courts.

On Friday, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the first of those decisions, a 1985 ruling that required property owners to take their complaints to the state courts first. Instead, the court majority said Knick and other property owners seeking compensation for limits on their property rights may go directly to federal court.

“We now conclude that the state litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden” on a property owner’s claim that his or her land has been effectively taken for public benefit without the government paying just compensation, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.

In essence, Roberts said, property owners are entitled to the same rights in federal court that other citizens have if they can prove that their constitutional rights have been violated.

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by the court’s three other liberal justices, dissented in furious tones. Friday’s decision, she said, “rejects far more than a single decision in 1985.” That decision, Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, “was rooted in an understanding of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause stretching back to the late 1800s, Kagan wrote.

On that view, a government could take property so long as it provided a reliable mechanism to pay just compensation, even if the payment came after the fact,” Kagan said, adding, “No longer.”

In conflict with “precedent after precedent,” she said, the majority holds that a government violates the Constitution whenever it takes property without advance compensation, no matter how good its commitment to pay. The consequence, she added, is “to channel a mass of quintessentially local cases involving complex state-law issues into federal courts.”

The “entire idea” of abiding by precedent, she said, is that “judges do not get to reverse a decision just because they never liked it in the first instance.” Rather, she said, they need a reason other than that the precedent was wrongly decided.

“It is hard to overstate the value, in a country like ours, of stability in law,” said Kagan, pointing so a similar observation by one of her colleagues just weeks ago.

On May 13, Justice Stephen Breyer chastised his conservative colleagues for reversing a precedent on a question that rarely arises: “Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next.”

“Well that didn’t take long,” opined a caustic Kagan. “Now one may wonder yet again.”