Appeals Court Delivers Decisive Blow to Trump's $100 Million Lawsuit Against The New York Times and Niece

In a resounding defeat for former President Donald Trump, a New York appellate court has unanimously thrown out his sweeping $100 million lawsuit against The New York Times, his estranged niece Mary Trump, and three of the newspaper's investigative reporters. The decision marks a significant victory for press freedom and free speech, upholding the protections afforded to journalists and public discourse.

Trump had accused the defendants – reporters Susanne Craig, Russ Buettner, and Mike McIntire, along with The New York Times Company and Mary Trump – of engaging in a "malicious conspiracy" to illegally obtain and publish his confidential tax records.

These records formed the basis of a groundbreaking 2018 investigative series that meticulously detailed his financial dealings, tax avoidance, and the dubious origins of his wealth, which ultimately earned the newspaper a Pulitzer Prize.

The Appellate Division, First Judicial Department in Manhattan, delivered its unequivocal ruling, concluding that the lawsuit's claims lacked merit and were precisely the type of legal action New York's robust anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) law was designed to prevent.

The court found no evidence whatsoever of an unlawful conspiracy, emphasizing that the reporters' pursuit of information for a matter of immense public interest was well within their constitutional rights.

Central to the court's decision was the application of the anti-SLAPP law, which safeguards individuals and organizations from costly, frivolous lawsuits intended to silence speech on public issues.

The appellate judges determined that the reporters' actions in gathering information for their exposé were protected journalistic endeavors. Similarly, Mary Trump's disclosure of documents, which she had obtained from her brother Fred Trump III for a prior legal dispute, was also covered by the anti-SLAPP statute, as her subsequent memoir, "Too Much and Never Enough," addressed matters of public concern regarding her family and the former president.

This appellate ruling affirms earlier decisions by lower courts.

In May 2023, a state judge had already dismissed the claims against The New York Times and its reporters. A separate decision in November 2023 saw the claims against Mary Trump also dismissed. These consistent rulings underscore the judiciary's commitment to protecting the investigative process and the right to publish information in the public interest.

Following the dismissal, The New York Times released a statement expressing profound satisfaction.

"The appellate court has sent a clear message that New York’s strong anti-SLAPP law protects journalists from retaliatory lawsuits by public figures," said a spokesperson. "This ruling is a vital affirmation of press freedom and the public's right to know, and it reaffirms our commitment to pursuing stories in the public interest, no matter how powerful the subjects."

Mary Trump, whose revelations played a role in the investigation, also celebrated the outcome.

She highlighted the importance of the anti-SLAPP law in defending individuals against attempts to suppress truthful speech. "This is a victory not just for me, but for anyone who speaks truth to power," she stated. "The law is there to protect those who expose wrongdoing, and today it did its job."

Donald Trump, who had sought a staggering $100 million in damages, has consistently attacked the reporting as false and politically motivated.

His legal team had argued that the defendants "acted with malice and willfully engaged in a calculated plan to obtain and reveal the plaintiff’s confidential tax records." However, the courts have now decisively rejected this narrative, solidifying the legal protections for robust, independent journalism.

This latest legal setback for the former president reinforces the critical role of a free press in a democratic society and serves as a powerful reminder that powerful figures cannot weaponize the legal system to silence inconvenient truths or retaliate against legitimate reporting.