A US federal judge in Florida on Friday dismissed President Donald J. Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times and others, ruling that the 85-page complaint was “improper and impermissible” under federal court rules and resembled a political manifesto more than a legal filing.
The lawsuit, filed earlier this week, sought $15 billion in damages from the newspaper, four of its reporters, and publisher Penguin Random House. It alleged that The Times disparaged Mr. Trump’s reputation as a businessman in a series of articles and books.
But US District Judge Steven D. Merryday sharply criticized the filing, saying it strayed far beyond the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates a “short and plain statement of the claim.”
“A complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective—not a protected platform to rage against an adversary,” Judge Merryday wrote. “A complaint is a mechanism to fairly, precisely, directly, soberly, and economically inform the defendants.”
In his order, Judge Merryday noted that Trump’s attorneys waited until page 80 to present the first formal allegation of defamation. The preceding pages were filled with tributes to Trump’s business career, television success, and election victories, alongside denunciations of what the complaint described as the “hopelessly compromised and tarnished ‘Gray Lady.'”
The judge struck the complaint but allowed Trump’s legal team 28 days to refile, limiting any amended version to 40 pages. He stressed that his ruling “suggests nothing about the truth of the allegations or the validity of the claims” but only addressed the format and style of the filing.
The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal actions Trump has brought against major news organizations. In July, he sued The Wall Street Journal over an article about his ties to financier Jeffrey Epstein. He has also filed actions against CBS News and ABC News, each of which reportedly agreed to $16 million settlements.
Judge Merryday made clear that his ruling on Friday aimed to bring the case back within the legal boundaries of federal procedure: “This action will begin, will continue, and will end in accord with the rules of procedure and in a professional and dignified manner.”
