- Judge said suit failed to meet legal standards for defamation
- Case delayed in part by Jackson’s elevation to Supreme Court
A defamation lawsuit by President
US District Judge
Contreras said the campaign failed to show the writer of the Mueller piece acted with “actual malice.” General allegations of political bias weren’t enough, and there wasn’t evidence the writer knowingly or recklessly published false information, the judge wrote.
The second article was an opinion piece protected by the First Amendment, Contreras found.
Trump’s lawyers at the Dhillon Law Group didn’t immediately return requests for comment.
“We stand by our work and are pleased with the outcome of the ruling,” Post spokesperson Shani George said in an email.
The Trump campaign filed several lawsuits against media outlets in 2020; judges in New York and Georgia previously tossed out cases against the New York Times and CNN, respectively. The former president himself has a separate, more recent defamation case against CNN pending. He also earlier this week
Lawyers argued the Post case in December 2020 but it sat largely dormant for the next two years. Contreras explained that the delay was due to the elevation of two judges to which the case had been previously assigned: Supreme Court Justice
Contreras gave the campaign the option of trying to come back with a revised complaint against the Post within 30 days.
The case is Donald J. Trump for President Inc. v. WP Company LLC, 1:20-cv-00626, US District Court, District of Columbia.
(Updates with comment from Washington Post.)
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Anthony Lin
© 2023 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.