Florida free speech law could aid Wall Street Journal in Trump defamation suit
A law central to First Amendment protections in Florida may apply in a federal lawsuit from President Donald Trump against the Wall Street Journal, which came after a report about a birthday letter from Trump to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Anti-SLAPP laws (SLAPP stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation") are meant to deter people from filing frivolous lawsuits based on someone's speech or publication, and Florida is among 38 states that have such laws. In some states and court jurisdictions, it could mean a dismissal and awarding attorney fees to the affected party.
But federal courts have taken different opinions about whether these laws apply in federal court, and Florida's law is particularly unusual in that it may award attorney fees to the losing party in federal courts, said David Keating, the president for the Institute for Free Speech.
'It's meant to help people's First Amendment right to speak,' he said.
The president's lawsuit comes after the Journal reported July 17 that, among many letters from Epstein's family and friends in a leather-bound birthday book gifted for his 50th birthday in 2003, one had Trump's signature. That letter ends with "Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret," the Journal reported.
Trump denied the letter and called the story 'malicious' and 'defamatory.' The day after it was published his attorney filed a lawsuit in Miami federal court, naming the Wall Street Journal, publisher Dow Jones & Company and its parent company News Corporation as defendants. It also named News Corporation's Rupert Murdoch, chief executive Robert Thomson and the two reporters who wrote the story.
Anti-SLAPP laws are a "substantive statute" and news outlets meet the law's requirements that the lawsuit breaches free speech in connection with a public issue, said Deanna Shullman, a media attorney based in West Palm Beach. Therefore, the Journal would have to prove whether the lawsuit has no merit. "All the Wall Street Journal would have to show was that the lawsuit was meritless," Shullman said.
The timeliness of this lawsuit holds significance, since it comes as Trump's Republican base is pressuring his administration to release more documents in Epstein's case. The calls to release the documents reverberate online on his Truth Social platform among conspiracy theorists and MAGA loyalists, and also among Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Congress.
A representative of the Wall Street Journal declined comment on this story, including questions of whether the newspaper would use the state anti-SLAPP law. A request for comment to Trump's attorney who filed the lawsuit, Alejandro Brito, is pending.
SLAPPing down a lawsuit
Trump is seeking $10 billion in damages for defamation, but traditionally anti-SLAPP laws are designed in ways to allow defendants to move to dismiss a case early in the lawsuit before discovery, said Jennifer Nelson, a senior staff attorney with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
The critical part about anti-SLAPP laws is that they serve as a deterrent from filing substantial suits, since prior to their existence wealthy individuals would bring defamation lawsuits just to "punish" speech rather than win, Nelson said.
"They wanted to drag the publication or the journalist through very expensive, time-consuming litigation as a punishment," Nelson said.
Keating noted there haven't been any definitive rulings in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that would give a hint of what direction judges may interpret the law. But Shullman noted that appellate judges have OK'd attorney fees under the law.
This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@gannett.com. On X: @stephanymatat.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Hands off — Trump's off-base attack on NYC's sanctuary immigration policy
Intentionally misstating New York City's sanctuary immigration policy as thwarting the prosecution of violent criminals, the Trump administration continued its war on local government by filing suit in federal court last week, one of a number of similar lawsuits across the country that conflate civil noncooperation with active criminal interference and attempt to conscript local officials into President Donald Trump's destructive crackdown. This should prove to Mayor Mayor Adams and other state and city leaders that no amount of appeasement is going to forestall the targeting from Trump. Adams met multiple times with immigration coordinator Tom Homan, insisting that the two men had 'the same goal,' making concessions like signing off on the opening up of an ICE office on Rikers Island years after a city sanctuary law had kicked them out. It's clear that Trump and Homan were not and probably could not be placated to the extent that they would leave Adams and New York City alone. The reality is that this is a totalizing project; Stephen Miller and the rest of the White House want to rid the country almost entirely of immigrants, with or without legal status, and regardless of where they are or what effect that will have on our economy and society. They've been routinely violating the law to do so. It's worth noting once more that Trump's is a political movement that often proclaimed itself a defender of state rights and local control, but apparently that only extended to allowing local officials to detain immigrants, pull books from school shelves, limit access to abortion, curb labor and environmental protections and drive LGBTQ people from public life. When it comes to a refusal to participate in federal operations that have so far involved masked and unidentified agents shoving people into unmarked vehicles — just the sort of thing that we would call authoritarianism and tyranny anywhere else — then states and localities get no say beyond being extensions of a central government. We're not particularly worried that any competent judge would accept these nonsensical claims. A day after the New York case was filed, a federal judge in Chicago dismissed the Trump lawsuit against that city's sanctuary immigration policy. We just want to remind readers that sanctuary is not immunity from prosecution, especially prosecution for violent crimes. What it is however is that when someone is treated at a city health clinic for TB or enrolls a child in school or reports a crime to the police as a victim or a witness, the person's civil immigration status is irrelevant. We want everyone in the city to get treated when sick, we want all children to be in school, we want all crime victims and witnesses to come forward to the cops. The idea of anti-commandeering — the notion that the federal government can't force state and local governments to carry out its own agenda and enforcement functions — has been foundational from the genesis of our country's federalized system. The right of jurisdictions to enact sanctuary provisions that block the use of local resources for this federal function has been litigated over and over again, and always found to be on solid legal footing. We are, however, more worried about the U.S. Supreme Court, which has in the past several months taken it upon itself to sign off on Trump's expansive power grabs. It has allowed among other things Trump to fire federal employees and independent agency members in direct contravention of statute, allowed the limiting of a nationwide order blocking Trump's attempt to overturn the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provisions and allowed parents to impose religious beliefs on whole school curricula. If these questions get up to that high court level, we hope that the justices will exercise some of their independent power, as they did on other absolutely egregious instances like Trump's efforts to remove people without due process under the Alien Enemies Act proclamation. Anything else will destroy the trust of people in their own local officials and governments and strike at the very foundation of this country's system of government. _____
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What's in the US-EU trade deal depends on who is doing the talking
President Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen shook hands Sunday over a trade agreement touted as being largely concluded, but days later, there are still plenty of disagreements about exactly what is in the pact. Perhaps nowhere is the divide more stark than in the summaries published by each side — one from the White House and another from the European Commission. They depart in at least five areas, both in terms of the deal and the firmness of the commitments. In just one example, the White House summary touts "historic structural reforms and strategic commitments," while the Europeans call the handshake deal "not legally binding," with more negotiations to come. Trump quipped Sunday that a deal would be "the end of it" and that it would be a number of years "before we have to even discuss it again." That is unlikely to be the case, which even Trump's aides acknowledge. The difference is likely to come to a head quickly as negotiations continue between the US and Europe over legally binding text and as trade watchers wait for a formal joint statement on the deal that the teams still hope to unveil this week. A range of areas of disagreement Clarity on at least one headline area is clear: an agreement for 15% tariffs on nearly all EU goods, including autos, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals, that will be exempt from separate Trump plans there. But the divides are evident once you go deeper. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick acknowledged that a lot remains to be worked out when he told CNBC on Tuesday that "there's plenty of horse trading still to do," even as he argued that the "fundamentals" are set. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet Trump has also already set a pattern of fuzzy initial details on his deals, including a recent pact with Japan, but a comparison of the two documents summarizing the Europe deal underlines differences on many of the key aspects. On the issue of new investments by Europe — $750 billion in US energy and additional corporate investments of $600 billion — the summary from the US side described them as firm commitments. The European language is much less solid, saying it "intends to procure" additional energy and that European companies "have expressed interest" in additional investments. More differences are seen on whether the deal will mean European markets are "totally open," as Trump has said. The European summary of provisions around fish says they will allow "limited quantities" and only "certain non-sensitive" agricultural products. Another highly touted part of the agreement from the US side is a provision for Europe to purchase military equipment. As Trump said on Sunday, "They're going to be purchasing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of military equipment." That part isn't even mentioned in the European summary. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump back in court Thursday to defend the tariffs he plans to impose Friday
An imposing threat to President Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs will be tested by a panel of Washington, D.C., federal appeals court judges on Thursday, less than 24 hours before those duties are scheduled to take effect for countries around the world. In a case that is moving quickly through the judicial system, a group of small business importers and 12 states will clash with the US Justice Department over the president's authority to impose the tariffs without authorization from Congress. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is hearing the case, is reviewing a lower court's prior decision in May to strike down the president's tariffs. That ruling was put on hold pending a decision from a panel of appeals court judges, which is not expected before the additional tariffs take effect Friday. The tariffs that go into effect tomorrow were originally unveiled on April 2, which Trump dubbed "Liberation Day," and scheduled to start on April 9 but were then delayed 90 days and again to Aug. 1. Some of the rates have been adjusted after negotiations with major trading partners. Read more: 5 ways to tariff-proof your finances The courtroom showdown on Thursday will move businesses, investors, and consumers closer to answering a critical legal question that is materially affecting their bottom lines: Can the president unilaterally impose wide-ranging, global tariffs by invoking a law enacted in 1977 to protect the US from international threats? That law, known as 'IEEPA' — the International Economic Emergency Powers Act — authorizes the president to 'regulate' international commerce after declaring a national emergency. The appeals court judges are tasked with evaluating whether the president's declared national emergencies — the flow of illegal fentanyl and illegal immigration into the US — are the type of emergencies that Congress intended when it created the law. And if so, whether the "Liberation Day" tariffs are the type of regulation that Congress intended to address those emergencies. Read more: The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs Ilya Somin, the lawyer for the small business importers that successfully challenged Trump's tariffs before the US Court of International Trade in May, argued in a blog post earlier this month that a Supreme Court decision issued in June titled FCC v. Consumers' Research strengthens the challengers' opposition to the tariffs. The court held that Congress legally delegated authority to the Federal Communications Commission to impose fees on telecommunications companies. No matter how the appeals court rules, constitutional and trade law experts widely expect the case to eventually reach the US Supreme Court. If that happens, the matter could remain unsettled well into next year since the Supreme Court's next term doesn't start until October. A separate challenge to Trump's tariffs will also play out this fall. Two toy manufacturers are scheduled to make their own arguments against Trump's duties before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 30 after winning their own lower court victory. The Trump administration still has other options if it can't win these courtroom battles on IEEPA. There are alternative laws that the administration could test out as taxing authority, all of which would be expected to draw litigation. Somin, the lawyer for the small business importers challenging Trump's tariffs, told Yahoo Finance last month that "if we win" the Trump administration 'could try to use other statutes' to justify new tariffs. 'And that would be a lengthy, complex discussion about what [the president] can do,' added Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and constitutional studies chair at the Cato Institute. One alternative statute that the president could try to cite as authority for tariffs is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs on a foreign nation so long as the US trade representative finds the nation has violated trade agreements or engaged in unfair trade practices. Other statutes include Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which empowers the president to impose tariffs on certain imports designated as a threat to the US economy, and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which empowers the president to impose tariffs on countries that unreasonably restrict US goods. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Sign in to access your portfolio
