Judge Dismisses Trump’s $10 Billion Lawsuit Against Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch With Prejudice

Case ends with prejudice

U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed President Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch, ruling the suit was "grasping at straws" and was thrown out "with prejudice" so it cannot be refiled.

Gayles ruled that Trump did not prove the defendants made defamatory statements with "actual malice" as required by law, and the judge said the lawsuit attempted to "manufacture" flaws in the Journal's investigative reporting.

The lawsuit targeted a Wall Street Journal story describing a sexually suggestive letter and drawing that the paper said bore Trump's name and was included in a 2003 album compiled for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday.

Trump denied writing or signing the letter and called the story "false, malicious and defamatory," while the dismissal cited the Supreme Court's 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

Dow Jones spokespersons said they were pleased with the decision, and a spokesman for Trump's legal team said the president would appeal the ruling.

Reporting for this sectionABC News & Headlines – Australian Broadcasting CorporationBBC

Actual malice and First Amendment

Gayles wrote that the amended complaint fell short of pleading "actual malice," and the judge said the allegations regarding malice were "conclusory, vague, sometimes inconsistent" and often irrelevant to whether defendants knew or should have known the statements were false. Gayles also said the Journal's story did not ignore or minimize Trump's denial, because it "informed readers that President Trump decried the Letter as a fake and denied writing it." Trump's legal team argued that because Trump denied writing the letter when contacted by the Journal, the paper should have "disregarded everything else they learned in their investigation and not published the story," but Gayles said that "is not what the actual malice standard requires" and runs afoul of the First Amendment.

The Wall Street Journal story described a letter bearing Trump's name with text framed by the outline of what appeared to be a hand-drawn naked woman and ending with "Happy Birthday - and may every day be another wonderful secret." The dispute followed an earlier dismissal in April, when Gayles said the complaint was "nowhere close" to the actual malice standard and allowed Trump to refile.

Reporting for this sectionNPRBBC

Trump vows to press on

After the ruling, a spokesman for Trump's legal team said, "President Trump will continue to press forward in his powerhouse lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and all of the other defendants," while also saying the president would hold those who mislead the American people accountable.

Dow Jones said, "We’re pleased with the court’s decision," and the court filing and ruling ended the defamation challenge that sought $10 billion in damages.

The case centered on a 2003 Epstein birthday book story in which the House Oversight Committee published a copy of the alleged birthday note consisting of a dialogue between "Donald" and "Jeffrey," including the line "Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?"

The note ended with "A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret," followed by Trump's signature, which took the place of pubic hair on the nude outline.

The dismissal with prejudice meant the lawsuit could not be amended or refiled, and the judge said the court found that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because Trump had failed to establish actual malice in his second attempt.

Reporting for this sectionThe GuardianThe Hindu