Judge Dismisses Trump’s $25 Billion Lawsuit Against The New York Times

News">
September 20, 2025

Judge Dismisses Trump’s $15 Billion Defamation Suit Against The New York Times

A Florida-based Federal Judge has dismissed a ample $15 billion defamation lawsuit initiated by former President Donald Trump against The New York Times. The ruling, delivered on Saturday, centers around allegations that the newspaper published false and damaging statements about the former President.

Lawsuit Deemed Excessive And Improper

United States District Judge Steven Merryday determined that Trump’s 85-page complaint was unnecessarily extensive and contained language deemed “tedious and burdensome” with limited relevance to the core legal arguments. The Judge emphasized that a legal filing should not function as a platform for public relations or political rhetoric.

“A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally,” Judge Merryday stated in his four-page order. He instructed the former President’s legal team to submit an amended complaint within 28 days, limiting it to a maximum of 40 pages.

the Core Of The Dispute

The initial lawsuit targeted four journalists at The New York Times, stemming from a book and three articles published prior to the recent election. The articles in question addressed various aspects including Trump’s financial dealings, his pre-presidential career on the television show “The Apprentice,” and the influence of the show on his public image.

The New York Times swiftly responded to the lawsuit, labeling it as without merit and an attempt to stifle independent journalism. Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for the Times, welcomed the judge’s decision, stating it recognized the complaint’s primarily political nature.

A Timeline of Legal Battles

This dismissal represents the latest in a series of legal challenges launched by Trump against major news organizations. He has previously filed suits against ABC News and CBS News, both of which were resolved through out-of-court settlements. More recently, in July, Trump initiated legal action against The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch following a report detailing his connections to convicted sex offender jeffrey Epstein.

The complaint’s length was a significant point of contention, with the Judge noting that the first defamation claim wasn’t reached until page 80. The lawsuit extensively detailed Trump’s appearances in media, a factor the judge deemed irrelevant to the defamation claims.

Legal action	Plaintiff	Defendant	Status
Defamation Lawsuit	Donald Trump	The New York Times	Dismissed
Defamation Lawsuit	Donald Trump	ABC news	Settled
Defamation Lawsuit	Donald Trump	CBS News	Settled
Defamation Lawsuit	Donald Trump	The Wall Street Journal/Rupert Murdoch	Ongoing

Understanding Defamation Law

Defamation, in legal terms, involves making false statements that harm someone’s reputation. Cornell Law School provides a thorough overview of defamation law, outlining the elements required to establish a claim – including false statement, publication, identification, damages, and fault. Proving actual malice, notably for public figures like former President Trump, is a significant legal hurdle.

Did You Know? The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech, but this protection isn’t absolute when it comes to defamation. Courts balance these rights when considering these cases.

Pro Tip: Understanding the difference between libel (written defamation) and slander (spoken defamation) is crucial in these cases.defamation laws vary by jurisdiction and frequently enough require proving the statement was made with malicious intent or reckless disregard for the truth.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Lawsuit

What is the meaning of the judge dismissing the lawsuit?

The dismissal signals the Judge found the initial complaint to be structurally flawed and unduly reliant on political arguments rather then legal substantiation regarding defamation principles.

What does it mean for Trump to file an amended complaint?

Trump’s legal team has a limited opportunity to refine the lawsuit, focusing on specific instances of alleged defamation and adhering to the court’s length restrictions. this is a chance to address the Judge’s concerns about the initial filing.

Is it common for high-profile figures to file defamation lawsuits?

Yes, it’s increasingly common, but proving defamation against media outlets, especially for public figures, is notoriously tough due to the high legal bar of proving “actual malice.”

What are the potential outcomes of an amended complaint?

The judge could dismiss the amended complaint as well,or allow the case to proceed to finding and possibly trial. However, the initial dismissal suggests a challenging path forward for the plaintiff.

How does the First Amendment play a role in these cases?

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, creating a legal tension with claims of defamation. courts must balance the right to free speech with the need to protect individuals from false and damaging statements.

What are your thoughts on this legal battle? Do you believe it’s becoming increasingly common for public figures to challenge media reporting in court?

share your opinions and engage in the conversation below!

What constitutes “actual malice” in a defamation case, and why is it a high legal bar to clear?

The Dismissal: key details of the Ruling

A federal judge has dismissed former President Donald Trump’s $25 billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, marking a significant legal defeat for the former president. The lawsuit, filed in 2021, centered around a 2018 opinion piece published by the Times that discussed allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump.Trump claimed the article damaged his reputation and sought substantial damages.

the judge’s decision hinged on the legal standard for defamation claims brought by public figures, specifically the requirement to prove “actual malice” – meaning the Times published the piece knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. The court found that Trump failed to demonstrate this crucial element.

Understanding the “Actual Malice” Standard

The “actual malice” standard originates from the landmark 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. This ruling established a high bar for public figures suing for defamation, recognizing the importance of robust debate on public issues.

Here’s a breakdown of what “actual malice” entails:

* Knowledge of Falsity: The publisher must have known the statement was false when it was published.

* Reckless Disregard: The publisher acted with a high degree of awareness of probable falsity, essentially ignoring obvious red flags.

* Public Figure Status: This standard applies to individuals considered public figures – politicians, celebrities, and those who have thrust themselves into the public spotlight.

The Core of Trump’s Claim vs. The Times’ Defense

Trump’s lawsuit argued that the Times intentionally published a false and damaging statement. He asserted the opinion piece was a deliberate attempt to harm his reputation.

The New York Times vigorously defended its reporting, arguing the opinion piece was protected speech under the First Amendment and that it did not act with actual malice. Their defense rested on:

* Opinion vs. Fact: The piece was clearly presented as an opinion, not a statement of fact.

* Reliance on Sources: The Times relied on statements made by individuals who had previously accused Trump of misconduct.

* No Intent to Harm: The Times maintained it had no intention to deliberately harm Trump’s reputation.

Previous Legal Battles & Similar Cases

This isn’t the first time Trump has pursued legal action against media outlets. He has previously filed lawsuits against various news organizations, frequently enough alleging defamation. These cases have largely been unsuccessful, reinforcing the protections afforded to the press under the First Amendment.

* Trump vs. CNN (2023): A similar defamation lawsuit against CNN was also dismissed, with a judge citing the “actual malice” standard.

* Dominion Voting Systems vs. Fox News (2023): While Fox News settled with Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million, the case highlighted the challenges of proving defamation, even with evidence of internal doubts about the truthfulness of claims. This case differed substantially as it involved reporting as fact, not opinion.

Implications for Freedom of the Press & Defamation Law

The dismissal of Trump’s lawsuit against The New York Times is widely seen as a victory for freedom of the press. It reaffirms the importance of the “actual malice” standard and protects journalists from frivolous lawsuits intended to silence critical reporting.

This ruling underscores the following:

* Robust Debate: The First Amendment protects even harsh criticism of public figures.

* High Legal Bar: Public figures face a significant hurdle in proving defamation.

* Chilling Effect: Allowing such lawsuits to proceed could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism.

What Happens Next?

Trump’s legal team has indicated they intend to appeal the judge’s decision. The case could potentially reach the Supreme Court, which could revisit the “actual malice” standard established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Though, legal experts suggest the Supreme Court is unlikely to significantly alter the existing precedent. The appeal process could take months, if not years, to resolve.

The Role of Opinion Pieces in Legal Disputes

opinion pieces, by their very nature, are subjective interpretations of events. They are generally afforded greater protection under the First Amendment than statements of fact. However, even opinion pieces can be subject to defamation claims if they contain false statements of fact presented as truth. The key distinction lies in whether a reasonable reader would understand the statement to be an assertion of fact or merely an expression of opinion.

Resources for Further Information

* New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/supreme-court/1964/376-u-s-254/

* First Amendment Protections: [[