(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Judge nixes Trump's $15B suit vs NYT: saying "vituperation & invective" aren't a legal argument [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2025-09-19
"It is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect taste, on all public institutions." — US Supreme Court, NYT v. Sullivan (1964)
A judge rules that lawsuits need to show that a law has been broken
US District Judge Steven Merryday in Florida threw out Trump's $15 billion libel and defamation lawsuit against the New York Times. He ruled that Trump's lawyers hadn't provided a succinct complaint for the court to consider (the suit was 85 pages long).
Trump had accused the paper of defaming him with malicious accusations. However. Merryday pointed out that Trump's lawsuit lacked "any legitimate legal claims."
He gave Trump 28 days to file another lawsuit. And told his lawyers to limit any new version to 40 pages.
In explaining his decision, Merryday said that American courts aren't a venue for shit slinging. They are in the business of adjudicating whether a statute has been contravened. To that end, a lawsuit must identify the legal grounds for claiming a defendant has broken the law.
In Merryday's words:
"As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective − not a protected platform to rage against an adversary. A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park Speakers' Corner."
In issuing his ruling, the judge agreed with The New York Times' opinion that Trump's suit was a brutish but unfounded attempt, by an aspiring autocrat, to crush dissent to his fascist goals. The NYT put it thus:
"This lawsuit has no merit. It lacks any legitimate legal claims and instead is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting. The New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics. We will continue to pursue the facts without fear or favor and stand up for journalists' First Amendment right to ask questions on behalf of the American people."
NYT v Sullivan, a ruling even Fox News loves
The NYT has been here before. In 1964, the Supreme Court decided the New York Times v. Sullivan case in favor of the newspaper — and, by extension, in favor of the media's expansive right to criticize public officials absent "actual malice."
What this Supreme Court would decide is anyone's guess. The conservative Justices have shown no regard for precedent. And they are front row members of Trump's cheer squad. However, the MAGA media will not (or should not) be so quick to support Trump's attack on the NYT.
If he wins, that will change the ground rules for all media. It will open up the floodgates for suits by Democratic politicians to sue Fox News and their fellow travelers. Either way, conservative media will suffer at the bottom line. They'll either have to play it safe and lose subscribers. Or they will have to pay millions in settlements.
Is it better for Trump if the case goes away?
I don't know how much Trump is paying his lawyers (Note: he apparently now does pay them , as others are covering the cost). But surely it's enough to allow them to file a lawsuit that has enough legal merit to satisfy a judge — while at the same time containing sufficient ad hominem vituperation to keep the boss signing their paychecks.
We should also consider that Trump's lawyers are deliberately filing substandard work so the issue never comes to trial. Trump relies on extorting settlements out of media organizations that are too chicken to stand up for free speech. Or those who need his sign-off on mergers that will net the corporate principals millions in future profits.
If The New York Times refuses to settle, a lengthy process of discovery and depositions will ensue. Trump has shown a remarkable political resilience in the face of criminality and scandal that would have sunk any other politician. However, his suppression of the Epstein files suggests that there are aspects of his résumé that he can't risk becoming public.
The lesson is clear. The only way to fight a bully is to tell them to feck off. If you don't stand up for yourself, it isn't likely anyone else will stand up for you.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/9/19/2344432/-Judge-nixes-Trump-s-15B-suit-vs-NYT-saying-vituperation-invective-aren-t-a-legal-argument?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
