Judge throws out Trump’s $15 billion lawsuit against New York Times, citing improper content

Audio By Carbonatix

Enlarge

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) -A federal judge on Friday threw out U.S. President Donald Trump’s $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times over its content, calling it a “decidedly improper and impermissible” effort to attack his adversaries.

U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday said Trump’s complaint against the Times, four reporters and the publisher Penguin Random House was too long and burdensome, and violated a federal civil procedure rule by omitting a short and plain statement of why Trump should win.

He faulted the Republican president for instead packing the 85-page complaint with unnecessary attacks against critics, statements lauding his successes and “singular brilliance,” and even a defense of his late father Fred Trump.

“A complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective — not a protected platform to rage against an adversary,” the Tampa, Florida-based judge wrote. “A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally.”

Merryday, an appointee of Republican former President George H.W. Bush, gave Trump 28 days to file an amended complaint “in a professional and dignified manner” of no more than 40 pages.

TRUMP PLANS TO FOLLOW JUDGE’S DIRECTIONS

A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said in a statement: “President Trump will continue to hold the Fake News accountable through this powerhouse lawsuit against the New York Times, its reporters, and Penguin Random House, in accordance with the judge’s direction on logistics.”

A Times spokesperson said: “We welcome the judge’s quick ruling, which recognized that the complaint was a political document rather than a serious legal filing.”

Penguin Random House said it applauded the dismissal, citing the judge’s description of the complaint as improper and impermissible.

Trump has turned to the courts as part of his campaign to rein in reporting and commentary he considers unfair to him.

He sued over three articles and a book by two of the Times reporters. He accused the defendants of defaming him prior to the 2024 presidential election in order to sabotage his campaign and disparage his reputation as a successful businessman.

COMPLAINT WENT TOO FAR PLEADING TRUMP’S CLAIM

Friday’s order is an unusual rebuke by a federal judge to a sitting president over decorum in the judicial process.

In his four-page order, Merryday said plaintiffs like Trump are supposed to “fairly, precisely, directly, soberly, and economically” tell defendants in complaints why they are being sued.

Trump’s complaint said the defendants “baselessly hate President Trump in a deranged way,” and that their actions “represent a new journalistic low for the hopelessly compromised and tarnished ‘Gray Lady,'” a nickname for the Times.

It also contended that the Times itself was “deranged” for endorsing Democrat Kamala Harris for president.

“Although lawyers receive a modicum of expressive latitude in pleading the claim of a client,” Merryday wrote, “the complaint in this action extends far beyond the outer bound of that latitude.”

One of Trump’s lawyers also represents the president in his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal, over an article about a birthday greeting sent to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein in 2003.

Two of Trump’s other lawyers helped him obtain a $16 million settlement in July with CBS News’ parent Paramount Global over the editing of an interview with Harris on “60 Minutes.”

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York, Editing by Franklin Paul and Rosalba O’Brien)