Florida judge dismisses Trump's defamation suit against The New York Times; 28 days to refile with 40-page cap
Judge Merryday rules the complaint was florid and enervating; Trump given 28 days to refile; future filings limited to 40 pages; suit targets The New York Times, four reporters and Penguin Random House
A federal judge in Florida dismissed Donald Trump's $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times four days after it was filed, saying the complaint was 'florid and enervating' and inappropriate for a defamation claim. Judge Steven D. Merryday of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued the ruling, noting the filing's length and tone.
The court gave Trump 28 days to refile the defamation claim and ordered that any future filings be limited to 40 pages, The New York Times reported. The decision preserves a path for refiled action if Trump chooses to pursue the case, but under stricter procedural limits intended to curb excessive filings.
During the hearing, Merryday blasted the filing as a vehicle for political point-scoring rather than a legitimate defamation action. 'A complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective. Not a protected platform to rage against an adversary,' the judge said, adding that it should not function as 'the Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner.'
Trump's lawsuit named The New York Times Company, four reporters and publisher Penguin Random House, accusing them of defaming him through a series of Times articles in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election.
The Times responded with a firm defense, saying the move mischaracterized the reporting and would be vigorously contested. Executive Editor Joe Kahn said, 'He’s wrong on the facts; he’s wrong on the law. And we’ll fight it, and we’ll win.'
A Trump spokesman said the president would 'continue to hold the Fake News accountable through this powerhouse lawsuit' and did not specify whether or when he would refile.
Legal observers noted the ruling adds another chapter to a long-running pattern of litigation involving the former president and critical media outlets, even as the court set a clear procedural limit for any future filings. The case remains part of a broader narrative about how defamation actions intersect with political reporting and election campaigning.