In a major blow to former President Donald Trump’s latest legal battle with the press, a federal judge has thrown out Trump’s $15 billion lawsuit against The New York Times, its journalists, and publisher Penguin Random House. The court determined that the 85-page complaint was overly lengthy, politically charged, and failed to meet the legal standards required for a federal pleading.
Judge Merryday Criticizes Trump’s Filing
U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday, presiding over the case in Florida, issued a sharply worded order dismissing the complaint. According to Merryday, the lawsuit read more like a political campaign speech or public relations statement than a legal filing. He described it as “improper and impermissible,” explaining that court pleadings must be written in a clear, concise, and legally relevant manner.
The judge was particularly critical of the inclusion of unnecessary rhetoric. The filing reportedly included glowing references to Trump’s accomplishments, personal attacks against the Times, and language describing the paper as “deranged,” “hopelessly compromised,” and “biased against Trump.” Merryday reminded Trump’s legal team that federal courts are not a venue for political theatre.
“A complaint must be fairly, precisely, directly, soberly, and economically stated,” Merryday wrote in his order. “It is not a platform for vituperation and invective or for the airing of partisan grievances.”
Legal and Procedural Grounds for Dismissal
The court pointed out several technical and substantive issues with the lawsuit. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement” of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Trump’s 85-page filing failed that test. Judge Merryday ordered that if Trump chooses to refile, the complaint must be reduced to no more than 40 pages and must focus strictly on legal arguments, leaving out extraneous commentary.
The lawsuit targeted three New York Times articles and a book authored by two of its reporters, alleging that these publications defamed Trump ahead of the 2024 presidential election. Trump claimed that the coverage harmed his reputation, inflicted business losses, and contributed to what he describes as a politically motivated campaign to damage him.
The Defendants’ Response
The ruling was welcomed by The New York Times and Penguin Random House. Both parties praised the judge’s recognition that the lawsuit was more about politics than law. A spokesperson for the Times reaffirmed the publication’s commitment to robust journalism and free speech protections.
Penguin Random House echoed that sentiment, emphasizing that the First Amendment protects books and journalism that report on public figures—particularly those running for the highest office in the nation.
Trump’s Legal Team Promises to Refile
Despite the dismissal, Trump’s legal team indicated that this is far from the end of the fight. In a public statement, they said they would comply with the court’s order and submit a revised complaint within the 28-day deadline set by Judge Merryday.
“President Trump fully intends to hold these media companies accountable for their lies,” one of his attorneys stated. “We will present a complaint that addresses the court’s concerns while continuing to seek justice for the harm caused to President Trump’s reputation and business.”
Broader Implications
The decision highlights the challenges public figures face in pursuing defamation cases against major media outlets. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, public figures like Trump must prove “actual malice”—meaning the defendants either knew their reporting was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Legal experts note that this is an extremely high bar, one that few plaintiffs successfully meet.
Merryday’s ruling also sends a message about the importance of professionalism in court filings. Judges have the authority to strike complaints that are overly verbose, confusing, or improperly motivated. This case serves as a reminder that legal pleadings must adhere to procedural rules, regardless of the political profile of the litigants.
What Comes Next
All eyes will now be on Trump’s legal team as they prepare a pared-down complaint. If refiled, the case could move forward to motions practice, where the defendants may again seek dismissal—this time on substantive legal grounds rather than procedural ones.
If the lawsuit survives those motions, it could eventually proceed to discovery, where the Times’ internal communications and editorial decisions would come under scrutiny. However, given the court’s criticism of the original filing, Trump faces an uphill battle even before the case reaches that stage.
Conclusion
This ruling marks a significant setback for Trump, who has frequently sparred with the press throughout his political career. While he has pledged to keep fighting, the court’s dismissal underscores that legal battles must be fought within the strict confines of judicial procedure—not through political rhetoric.
For media outlets, the decision reaffirms the strong constitutional protections for reporting on public officials, even when that reporting is controversial or unfavorable.
Interested in Media & First Amendment Law?
Cases like this highlight the high stakes of defamation litigation and press freedom in the U.S. If you’re an attorney passionate about constitutional law, media defense, or public figure litigation, explore exclusive opportunities on LawCrossing. Discover positions at top law firms and in-house roles where you can shape the future of free speech and media law.
