Judge rejects Trump’s lawsuit against New York Times as improper and impermissible
TOI World Desk | TOI Global Desk | Sep 19, 2025, 23:06 IST
Highlight of the story: A federal judge rejected Donald Trump’s $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, calling the 85-page filing “improper and impermissible” under federal rules. Judge Steven Merryday said the complaint read like a political broadside rather than a legal case, but gave Trump’s team 30 days to refile within 40 pages. The Times has vowed to fight the lawsuit, while legal experts widely dismiss the case as meritless.
A judge in the federal court dismissed Donald Trump's sweeping defamation complaint against The New York Times, saying the 85-page complaint ignored fundamental requirements of civil suits and sounded more like a political declaration than legal action.
US District Court Judge Steven D. Merryday of the Middle District of Florida decided on Friday, rebuking Trump's lawyers for submitting what he termed as a meandering, broad ramble. Referring to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Merryday stated the complaint did not make "a short, plain, direct statement of allegations of fact" but instead turned out to be a long diatribe against the media.
The complaint is unequivocally improper and unlawful," Merryday wrote. He underscored the fact that a legal complaint "is not a public forum for vituperation and invective" or "a megaphone for public relations."
Judge gives Trump a second chance
Although his reprimand was stern, Merryday gave Trump's lawyers 30 days to resubmit the case. Any revised one, he said, should not exceed 40 pages and eschew the broad language that characterized the initial submission.
Trump's lawyers swiftly signaled they plan to relaunch the case. "President Trump will keep the Fake News accountable through this forceful lawsuit against The New York Times, its journalists, and Penguin Random House, as guided by the judge's orders on logistics," a spokesman stated.
The New York Times has not yet formally responded to the court’s decision. However, executive editor Joe Kahn said at an Axios event Thursday that Trump’s lawsuit was baseless. “He’s wrong on the facts and wrong on the law,” Kahn said. “We’ll fight it, and we’ll win.”
Trump initially sued the newspaper earlier this week, asking for $15 billion in damages. In the complaint, The New York Times was accused of being a "virtual mouthpiece" of the Democratic Party and included not only the newspaper itself but also publisher Penguin Random House and four reporters from The Times. They included those journalists who wrote the book Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father's Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success.
A lot of the filing mimicked Trump's characteristic attacks on the media, sounding at times like a campaign stump speech or editorial. It contained lavish praise for Trump himself and constant allusions to other lawsuits he has filed against news outlets.
Legal experts deem the suit meritless
Since the suit was lodged, scholars of the First Amendment and media law commentators have condemned the actions as unfounded. Some pundits described the garrulous 85-page complaint as seemingly crafted for publicity rather than any possibility of success in the courtroom.
By throwing out the case in such acerbic language, Judge Merryday compounded those suspicions. His decision highlighted the legal challenges Trump faces in attempting to establish defamation against a news outlet, especially when it covers issues of public concern and involves political leaders.
Nevertheless, the former president's supporters say they will continue the case within the narrower parameters the court has established. Whether a rewritten complaint can satisfy those criteria—and survive the First Amendment shield given to the press—has yet to be determined.
US District Court Judge Steven D. Merryday of the Middle District of Florida decided on Friday, rebuking Trump's lawyers for submitting what he termed as a meandering, broad ramble. Referring to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Merryday stated the complaint did not make "a short, plain, direct statement of allegations of fact" but instead turned out to be a long diatribe against the media.
The complaint is unequivocally improper and unlawful," Merryday wrote. He underscored the fact that a legal complaint "is not a public forum for vituperation and invective" or "a megaphone for public relations."
Judge gives Trump a second chance
Although his reprimand was stern, Merryday gave Trump's lawyers 30 days to resubmit the case. Any revised one, he said, should not exceed 40 pages and eschew the broad language that characterized the initial submission.
Trump's lawyers swiftly signaled they plan to relaunch the case. "President Trump will keep the Fake News accountable through this forceful lawsuit against The New York Times, its journalists, and Penguin Random House, as guided by the judge's orders on logistics," a spokesman stated.
The New York Times has not yet formally responded to the court’s decision. However, executive editor Joe Kahn said at an Axios event Thursday that Trump’s lawsuit was baseless. “He’s wrong on the facts and wrong on the law,” Kahn said. “We’ll fight it, and we’ll win.”
A $15 billion claim
Trump initially sued the newspaper earlier this week, asking for $15 billion in damages. In the complaint, The New York Times was accused of being a "virtual mouthpiece" of the Democratic Party and included not only the newspaper itself but also publisher Penguin Random House and four reporters from The Times. They included those journalists who wrote the book Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father's Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success.
A lot of the filing mimicked Trump's characteristic attacks on the media, sounding at times like a campaign stump speech or editorial. It contained lavish praise for Trump himself and constant allusions to other lawsuits he has filed against news outlets.
Legal experts deem the suit meritless
Since the suit was lodged, scholars of the First Amendment and media law commentators have condemned the actions as unfounded. Some pundits described the garrulous 85-page complaint as seemingly crafted for publicity rather than any possibility of success in the courtroom.
By throwing out the case in such acerbic language, Judge Merryday compounded those suspicions. His decision highlighted the legal challenges Trump faces in attempting to establish defamation against a news outlet, especially when it covers issues of public concern and involves political leaders.
Nevertheless, the former president's supporters say they will continue the case within the narrower parameters the court has established. Whether a rewritten complaint can satisfy those criteria—and survive the First Amendment shield given to the press—has yet to be determined.