Trump Suffers Major Legal Setback as Court Dismisses $10 Billion Defamation Lawsuit Against Wall Street Journal
US President Donald Trump has suffered a major legal setback after a federal court in Miami permanently dismissed his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and media mogul Rupert Murdoch.
US District Judge Darrin Gayles issued the ruling, observing that Trump was attempting to find support in a hopeless situation. The judge dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the President cannot file the same lawsuit again.
In its order, the court said Trump had failed to establish that the newspaper published the report with actual malice or knowingly spread false information. The judge observed that the complaint appeared to be an attempt to find or create flaws in the newspaper's investigative reporting.
This was not the first time the court had rejected Trump's lawsuit. Judge Gayles had dismissed the case in April but allowed the President an opportunity to submit an amended complaint. However, the revised filing also failed to meet the required legal standards, leading to its permanent dismissal.
What Is the Epstein Letter Controversy?
The lawsuit stemmed from a report published by The Wall Street Journal last year concerning an album prepared for convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003.
According to the newspaper's report, the album contained a controversial letter and an illustration bearing Donald Trump's name.
Trump strongly denied writing the letter and described the newspaper's report as false, defamatory and fabricated. He subsequently filed the $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the publication and Rupert Murdoch.
However, the judge noted that the newspaper had also prominently included Trump's response and his denial in its report.
The court's decision marks another legal setback for Trump in his dispute with the media over coverage of his alleged links to Epstein. The ruling also highlights the legal requirement for public figures to establish actual malice when pursuing defamation claims over published reports.