Federal Judge Dismisses Trump’s Fifteen-Billion-Dollar Suit Against New York Times, Orders Refile
Judge Merryday rules the complaint excessive and procedurally flawed and gives thirty-day window for a shorter, professional version
A U.S. federal judge has dismissed President Donald Trump’s fifteen-billion-dollar defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, finding that the eighty-five-page complaint was improperly composed, excessively long, and lacking in a clear legal statement of the claim.
Judge Steven Merryday ordered Trump’s legal team to file an amended complaint of no more than forty pages within twenty-eight days.
The suit, filed earlier this week, targets The New York Times, four of its reporters, and Penguin Random House, and complains of coverage and a book about Trump’s financial history and media presence before the last election.
Among the claims are that the defendants misrepresented his success, particularly regarding his role on the television show “The Apprentice,” and portrayed his inheritance and business deals in ways he alleges are false and defamatory.
Judge Merryday criticized the original filing for containing “many, often repetitive, and laudatory ...
but superfluous allegations,” and argued that a legal complaint should not serve as a platform for public relations or invective.
He noted that the first count of defamation did not appear until page eighty, with the second claim on page eighty-three.
The New York Times welcomed the ruling, stating that it recognized the complaint as more of a political document than a serious legal filing.
Trump’s legal team has committed to refile in compliance with the judge’s instructions.
Legal experts suggest this ruling underlines procedural rules’ importance in curbing lawsuits that may attempt to use the courts to amplify political grievances.
The decision may also set a precedent for how much latitude plaintiffs—especially high-profile ones—have in crafting complaints that target media organisations.
The judge’s order emphasized the court’s role in ensuring that filings are “professional and dignified” and instructed that the amended complaint adhere to length limits and focus strictly on the legally relevant allegations.
Trump’s case must meet these standards to proceed.
Judge Steven Merryday ordered Trump’s legal team to file an amended complaint of no more than forty pages within twenty-eight days.
The suit, filed earlier this week, targets The New York Times, four of its reporters, and Penguin Random House, and complains of coverage and a book about Trump’s financial history and media presence before the last election.
Among the claims are that the defendants misrepresented his success, particularly regarding his role on the television show “The Apprentice,” and portrayed his inheritance and business deals in ways he alleges are false and defamatory.
Judge Merryday criticized the original filing for containing “many, often repetitive, and laudatory ...
but superfluous allegations,” and argued that a legal complaint should not serve as a platform for public relations or invective.
He noted that the first count of defamation did not appear until page eighty, with the second claim on page eighty-three.
The New York Times welcomed the ruling, stating that it recognized the complaint as more of a political document than a serious legal filing.
Trump’s legal team has committed to refile in compliance with the judge’s instructions.
Legal experts suggest this ruling underlines procedural rules’ importance in curbing lawsuits that may attempt to use the courts to amplify political grievances.
The decision may also set a precedent for how much latitude plaintiffs—especially high-profile ones—have in crafting complaints that target media organisations.
The judge’s order emphasized the court’s role in ensuring that filings are “professional and dignified” and instructed that the amended complaint adhere to length limits and focus strictly on the legally relevant allegations.
Trump’s case must meet these standards to proceed.
