MaddowBlog-Why Trump's new civil suit against The New York Times is so bizarre

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Last edited Fri Sep 19, 2025, 02:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Americans have never had a president who, while in office, sued independent news organizations for publishing reports the White House disapproved of.

The volume of cases might make it seem as if this is normal, but the circumstances remain bizarre:

We’ve never seen a sitting American president who sued independent news organizations — several times — for publishing reports the White House disapproved of. www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...

— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2025-09-16T19:29:34.401Z

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-new-york-times-lawsuit-rcna231651

About a week ago, for reasons that were not altogether clear, Donald Trump threatened to sue The New York Times. Evidently, the president wasn’t kidding. NBC News reported:

President Donald Trump on Monday filed a federal defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, four of its reporters and Penguin Random House over coverage of his 2024 campaign. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which covers the area where Trump resides outside the White House, accused the newspaper of attempting to ruin his reputation as a businessman, sink his campaign and prejudice judges and juries against him in coverage of his campaign.

......Right off the bat, it’s important to note that describing the court filing as a “lawsuit” is itself generous. As writer Jesse Berney summarized, the lawsuit is “like an 85-page Trump Truth Social post. It’s hilarious.”

That characterization is more than fair. Reading it, I felt a little embarrassed for the lawyers who were responsible for producing it, especially after seeing random Trump-related images that seemed to have been included in this dreadfully silly document for no apparent reason.

There’s no reason to think the case will succeed. For that matter, Trump’s attorneys should hope they avoid sanctions for having filed such an absurdity in the first place......

The volume of cases might make it seem as if this has become routine, but the broader circumstances remain bizarre: Americans have never had a president who, while in office, sued independent news organizations for publishing reports the White House disapproved of.

And yet, Trump can’t seem to stop suing independent news organizations for publishing reports the White House disapproves of.

This lawsuit is truly bizarre and the lawyers involved should be sanctioned or disbarred. Again, one of the firms is based in Houston and no one at my firm has heard of them.

[orleans]

1. and there is no one who has the courage or intelligence to tell that orange shithead to

stop acting like a big fucking baby, knock that shit off, and behave like a damn president

what a bunch of losers

[harumph]

9. Courage and intelligence are beside the point. He will continue to pull this shit.

It doesn't matter what anybody has to say about it. You might as well shout at a fence post.

[Jim__]

2. Is it a private suit by Trump or a government suit by the President?

I'm wondering who has to pay from Trump's side. I think he's suing everyone so that the threat of a suit will keep the media from saying anything he doesn't like - lest they be sued.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. This is a private lawsuit by trump, individually

Link to tweet

Here is a link to the filing
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.447437/gov.uscourts.flmd.447437.1.0.pdf
trump is represented by a four attorney firm, an 8 attorney firm in Houston that I have never heard of and a solo firm.

[Jim__]

6. Thanks.

[snowybirdie]

3. Are these lawsuits

being brought by those big law firms who caved in to Trump a few months back?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. No

Here is a link to the filing
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.447437/gov.uscourts.flmd.447437.1.0.pdf
trump is represented by a four attorney firm, an 8 attorney firm in Houston that I have never heard of and a solo firm.

[Ocelot II]

7. One of the lawyers, Brito, is the same numpty who signed the WSJ complaint.

If anyone wants to read this Truth Social post disguised as a lawsuit, here's the complaint in all its absurd glory: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.447437/gov.uscourts.flmd.447437.1.0.pdf I feel like I lost a few IQ points just reading that mess. It's basically a blowjob on paper, extolling the brilliance and perfection and sheer genius of Dear Leader for about 75 pages. But I also flashed back to my federal civil procedure class, and made mental notes as to the many violations of the rules of pleading in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to be found in this verbal dungheap. Let's start with Rule 8, which says that a complaint is to include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." There's nothing short or plain about this statement. And: "Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. No technical form is required." I didn't see anything simple, concise or direct; the whole thing, complete with photographs, is just a big fat whine about how unfair NYT's reporting was. They claim actual malice, a requirement for a defamation claim against a public figure (this isn't NYT's first rodeo; the actual malice principle came from the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan). But Trump's crack team of lawyers doesn't seem to understand what actual malice means in this context - not personal malice or hatred, but the publication of a statement while knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Nothing Trump complains about is factual - it's all opinion, which is protected speech. He just complains that NYT and its reporters hate him and it's so unfair that they don't recognize his genius.

He's trying to extort money from NYT the way he did from CBS. This is SO bad, though, that NYT's lawyers, once they've stopped laughing, should file a Rule 11 motion - sanctions for filing a court document without a reasonable basis in law or fact. But read the thing if you didn't just have lunch.

[appmanga]

8. This shakedown has worked on other news orgs...

...so why not try to extort the Times? The might roll over just as easy as some of the others.

[Ocelot II]

10. It hasn't worked for the Wall Street Journal, at least not yet.

[GreenWave]

11. No sympathy here NYET Times.

Will they bend the knee and fork over the megabucks?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

12. trump filed in Florida federal court hoping to get Cannon assigned this case

trump did NOT get Cannon

Link to tweet

[tanyev]

13. *snort* "ruin his reputation as a businessman"

[LetMyPeopleVote]

14. Judge strikes down Trump's $15bn lawsuit against the New York Times

Judge says US president’s complaint that the newspaper is ‘spreading false content’ about him violates federal rule

Judge strikes down Trump’s bn lawsuit against the New York Times

— The Guardian (@theguardian.com) 2025-09-19T16:19:37Z

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/19/trump-nyt-lawsuit-judge-ruling

A US judge on Friday struck down Donald Trump’s $15bn lawsuit against the New York Times newspaper and some of its individual journalists. The judge gave the US president leave to amend the action, however, a court filing showed.

The judge in the case said that Trump’s complaint violated a federal rule requiring “a short plain statement” of the claim in an attempt to demonstrate that the plaintiff deserves relief.

Trump launched the massive lawsuit earlier this week accusing the major US publication of being a “mouthpiece” for the Democratic party and of “spreading false and defamatory content” about him.

On Friday the court said such a complaint is not a public forum “for vituperation and invective” or a protected platform “to rage against an adversary”.

The filing against the Times, the latest demonstration of the president’s willingness to use legal action against the media, was made by Trump’s lawyers to a district court in Florida on Monday night.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

15. MaddowBlog-Judge rejects Trump's case against The New York Times, tells lawyers to rewrite it

Like a teacher telling a student to redo his homework, a federal court told the president’s lawyers to file a less ridiculous document.

We’re gonna need a bigger bottle of ketchup. Judge rejects Trump’s case against The New York Times, tells lawyers to rewrite it www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...

— @hairgae.bsky.social 2025-09-19T16:36:39.308Z

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/judge-rejects-trump-new-york-times-case-rcna232429

About a week ago, for reasons that were not altogether clear, Donald Trump threatened to sue The New York Times. As it turns out, he wasn’t kidding: Earlier this week, the president and his lawyers filed a $15 billion civil suit (that’s not a typo) against the newspaper, claiming the Times had defamed him and tried to ruin his reputation.

Four days later, a federal judge rejected the case — but not on the merits. Reuters reported:

A federal judge on Friday struck Donald Trump’s $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times. U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday said Trump violated a federal procedural rule requiring a short and plain statement of why he deserves relief, and that a complaint is not ‘a public forum for vituperation and invective’ or ‘a protected platform to rage against an adversary.’

,,,,,,The judge’s reaction was understandable. Putting aside every other consideration — the White House’s unprecedented offensive against the free press, the absurd dollar amount, the fact that the newspaper doesn’t appear to have done anything wrong, the unsettling frequency with which Trump files civil suits that seem awfully frivolous, et al. — the actual legal document filed with the federal court in Florida was an 85-page joke.

Reading it, I felt a little embarrassed for the lawyers who were responsible for producing it. The complaint (I’m using the word loosely) included random Trump-related images that seemed to have been included for no apparent reason. It described in unnecessary detail assorted television and film appearances the president made before his political career, as well as his role in beauty pageants......

That was true, though Merryday clearly wasn’t amused. Judges tend to prefer serious legal documents to self-indulgent public relations presentations. In fact, Merryday’s smackdown was so brutal that Politico’s Kyle Cheney noted that the judge called Trump’s court filing “essentially garbage.”

In a court order dripping with disdain, Merryday wrote: “As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective — not a protected platform to rage against an adversary. A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner.

]“A complaint is a mechanism to fairly, precisely, directly, soberly, and economically inform the defendants — in a professionally constrained manner consistent with the dignity of the adversarial process in an Article III court of the United States — of the nature and content of the claims. A complaint is a short, plain, direct statement of allegations of fact sufficient to create a facially plausible claim for relief and sufficient to permit the formulation of an informed response. Although lawyers receive a modicum of expressive latitude in pleading the claim of a client, the complaint in this action extends far beyond the outer bound of that latitude.

Has trump responded to this ruling yet?