A federal judge in Florida has dismissed President Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against media executive Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal, finding the complaint did not meet the legal standard required to proceed.
In an order issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles ruled that Trump did not sufficiently allege “actual malice,” a higher legal standard that applies when public officials bring defamation claims. The case was dismissed, but the court allowed Trump to file an amended complaint.
The lawsuit, filed in July, followed a report that revisited Trump’s past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The article described a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper said bore Trump’s signature. It was included in a 2003 birthday album prepared for Epstein. Trump denied writing the letter and called the report “false, malicious, and defamatory.”
The letter later became public after Congress subpoenaed records from Epstein’s estate. Trump’s lawsuit argued the publication damaged his reputation by presenting the letter as authentic and linking him to Epstein.
Lawyers for the newspaper and Murdoch asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing the reporting was accurate and therefore not defamatory. The judge declined to resolve those factual disputes at this stage, writing that questions about whether Trump authored the letter or the nature of his relationship with Epstein cannot be decided at this stage.
The decision turned on a key legal standard that applies when public officials sue for defamation. Under U.S. law, public figures must show that a statement harmed their reputation and that the publisher knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This standard, known as “actual malice,” comes from the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and is meant to protect speech about public officials.
Courts require detailed factual allegations showing what the publisher knew at the time of publication and why it should have questioned the reporting. Claims that a story is false or damaging are not enough to move a case forward.
The court did not determine whether the article was true or false, finding only that the complaint, as written, did not meet the standard to move forward. The ruling allows Trump to file an amended complaint with more specific allegations.
The case was dismissed without prejudice.
A federal appeals court on Monday affirmed an $83.3 million defamation judgment in favor of writer E. Jean Carroll, concluding that a Manhattan jury reasonably punished President Donald Trump for repeatedly branding her 2019 sexual-assault allegation as a lie. The three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the... Read More »
A Michigan judge has dismissed all charges against 15 Republicans accused of falsely certifying Donald Trump as the winner of the 2020 election, marking one of the most significant setbacks to date in state-level prosecutions of the so-called “fake electors” plan. District Court Judge Kristen D. Simmons ruled on Tuesday... Read More »
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) filed a lawsuit against The Washington Post for an article that he says lied about his actions regarding Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The case is currently under consideration for a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant newspaper. The article in question was published six... Read More »
As Queen Elizabeth prepares to celebrate her Platinum Jubilee next month, there is one thing that England’s longest-reigning-monarch will not be celebrating. Her youngest son, Prince Andrew, will have to face civil charges of sexual assault because a federal judge refused to dismiss charges against him by a woman who... Read More »
Meta has agreed to pay $25 million to settle a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump after his accounts were suspended following the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, according to sources familiar with the matter. Under the terms of the agreement, $22 million will be directed to a nonprofit organization... Read More »
