Judge dismisses Trump’s revised lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and Murdoch over its Epstein reporting

A federal judge on Saturday threw out President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch over the paper’s reporting on Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein². Judge Darrin Gayles of the southern district of Florida issued a 20-page ruling on Saturday afternoon². He found that Trump’s attorneys had failed to credibly allege “actual malice” in their complaint against the paper¹.

The ruling dealt with Trump’s revised lawsuit, which he had refiled seeking at least $10 billion in damages^1,5. The lawsuit, over the paper’s reporting on an Epstein birthday letter, was dismissed with prejudice³. The decision ends Trump’s attempts to sue the paper over that reporting⁵. The case concerned the Journal’s report on the Epstein letter⁴.

Why it matters to investors

It is the second time this year that courts have blocked Trump’s efforts to sue the paper over stories about his relationship with Epstein². As in the first case, the court found that the president did not clear the high bar set by New York Times v. Sullivan for defamation claims over critical reporting on public figures².

The damages sought, at least $10 billion, made the case a large claim against the paper and its owner, and the dismissal with prejudice removes it^2,3,5.

The ruling shows the actual-malice standard protecting a publisher in a suit brought by a public figure, in this case the sitting president^1,2. The judge found that Trump failed to prove the paper acted with actual malice, the state of mind the standard requires^1,2.

What to watch

The sources do not say whether Trump will appeal the dismissal^1,2. The ruling was issued with prejudice, a detail several accounts placed in their headlines³.

The decision ends Trump’s attempts to sue the Journal over the Epstein reporting, according to one account⁵. Statements from Trump’s lawyers, from the Journal or from Murdoch on the 20-page ruling would be the next markers^2,4.

The case followed an earlier attempt that courts had also blocked, which makes this the second such ruling in the same year². Judge Gayles’s finding on actual malice is the part of the ruling that addresses the core of the complaint¹.