By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal judge dismissed Donald Trump’s $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, citing violations of rules requiring a clear and concise explanation for relief. Judge Steven Merryday deemed the 85-page complaint excessive and unsuitable for presenting arguments, giving Trump 28 days to submit a revised complaint. The lawsuit, focusing on a book and articles by The New York Times reporters, accused the outlet of “defamatory and disparaging statements.” The New York Times responded by stating that the lawsuit lacks merit and is an attempt to stifle independent reporting.
Read the original article here
Trump’s NYT lawsuit dismissed by Republican-appointed judge is the headline, and the reality seems to fit the bill.
The recent dismissal of Donald Trump’s $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times by a federal judge, appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush, is the central event here. It wasn’t just a simple dismissal; it was a sharp rebuke of the filing itself. Judge Steven Merryday didn’t mince words. He essentially told Trump’s legal team that the complaint was a mess, failing to meet basic requirements.
The judge highlighted the violation of rules that demand clarity and conciseness, stating the lawsuit wasn’t a platform for “vituperation and invective.” He basically said the complaint was more akin to a rant than a legal document. The judge pointed out the language used was more like an attack than a legitimate legal argument, and therefore not valid. He explicitly stated it was not a place to “rage against an adversary,” effectively highlighting the unprofessional nature of the filing. The judge wasn’t simply dismissing the case outright; instead, he gave Trump a chance to revise and resubmit the complaint. He’s given them a limited time frame of 28 days.
This dismissal and the reasons behind it are being viewed with a mixture of amusement and frustration. Some see it as a clear sign of how poorly the case was presented. The order itself sounds like it’s written in legal terms for, “You see how dumb this shit is!” People have noted it seemed the lawsuit was crafted solely to appeal to Trump. This, of course, is why the judge seemed dismissive.
There’s a sense that such frivolous lawsuits should come with consequences. Several people have suggested that the NYT should have grounds to seek legal fees in response. There’s also a growing sentiment that Trump should be declared a “vexatious litigant,” a label that would restrict his ability to file future lawsuits. The judge’s feedback was basically saying it was a parody and was so poorly written it could not be considered.
A common theme emerging is how the political affiliations of the judge are being highlighted. It’s a sign of the times, that a Judge’s political stance is necessary to validate rulings as being unbiased. It is often necessary to also include the President who nominated them to further validate their position. This reflects a broader trend of hyper-partisanship in American politics.
The dismissal is viewed by some as a strategic move by Trump himself. It could be seen as an attempt to create a narrative of victimhood. He can claim he tried to take action, but was thwarted by a “corrupt” system to rally his base. He might avoid any potentially damaging revelations that would have surfaced if the case had proceeded. Discovery might have gone poorly and embarrassed him.
Some feel the dismissal was inevitable due to the weak legal arguments presented in the complaint. The general consensus appears to be that the filing was poorly constructed, relying on vague assertions. Trump’s lawsuits are increasingly seen as political theater. His supporters are often immune to factual evidence that would disprove his claims. It seems to be a carefully curated act.
A lot of people are hoping to see Trump face a deposition. This dismissal should not discourage the media companies, universities, or law firms from pushing back. Several seem hopeful for a counter-suit to provide the best possible resolution.
The case’s sheer incompetence is almost remarkable. Many people agree it was just intended to stir up controversy. The length of the complaint, with its inclusion of praise for Trump, is a sign of just how bad it was.
The dismissal itself is met with the expectation of an appeal to the Supreme Court. He wants to keep up the appearance of trying to fight back. He will keep trying.
There’s a strong sense that the complaint was an act of intimidation to silence the New York Times. He will likely continue to sue, knowing that it keeps his name in the media and keeps his supporters engaged. The point is to win.