Judge throws out Trump’s $19b lawsuit against New York Times, citing improper content
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
US President Donald Trump was given 28 days to file an amended complaint against the New York Times.
PHOTOS: AFP, UNSPLASH
- Judge Merryday dismissed Trump's $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, citing violation of civil procedure due to its excessive length and vitriol.
- Trump's lawsuit accused the Times and Penguin Random House of defamation to undermine his 2024 campaign; the judge called it "decidedly improper".
- Trump's team will refile a revised, shorter complaint as directed, while the New York Times welcomed the ruling, calling the initial filing "political".
AI generated
NEW YORK - A federal judge on Sept 19 threw out US President Donald Trump’s US$15 billion (S$19.2 billion) defamation lawsuit against the New York Times over its content, calling it a “decidedly improper and impermissible” effort to attack his adversaries.
US District Judge Steven Merryday said Mr Trump violated a federal civil procedure rule by failing to offer a short and plain statement of why he should prevail over the Times, four of its reporters and the publisher Penguin Random House.
He faulted the president for instead packing his 85-page complaint with unnecessary statements lauding his successes and “singular brilliance”, attacking critics, and even defending his father.
“A complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective - not a protected platform to rage against an adversary,” wrote Judge Merryday, an appointee of Republican former president George H.W. Bush.
The Tampa, Florida-based judge gave Mr Trump 28 days to file an amended complaint “in a professional and dignified manner” of no more than 40 pages.
Trump to comply
A spokesman for Mr 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.”
In a separate statement, a Times spokesperson said: “We welcome the judge’s quick ruling, which recognised that the complaint was a political document rather than a serious legal filing.”
Penguin Random House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The Sept 19 order is an unusual rebuke by a federal judge to a sitting president over decorum in the judicial process.
Mr Trump 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.
‘Not a megaphone’
In a four-page order, Judge Merryday said plaintiffs like Mr Trump are supposed to “fairly, precisely, directly, soberly, and economically” tell defendants in complaints why they are being sued.
Mr 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.
“A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations,” the judge wrote. “Although lawyers receive a modicum of expressive latitude in pleading the claim of a client, the complaint in this action extends far beyond the outer bound of that latitude.” REUTERS
