Federal Judge Ditches Stormy Daniels’ Defamation Suit Against President Trump

She claimed he falsely accused her of a crime. The court disagreed.

Stormy DanielsRalf Hirschberger/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.

A federal judge in Los Angeles dismissed Stormy Daniels’ defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump Monday afternoon. The lawsuit, filed in April, concerned Daniels’ claim that she had been approached and threatened by a man in a Las Vegas parking lot in 2011, soon after she agreed to discuss her affair with Trump in an article with In Touch magazine. Daniels says she never went public with her story as a result of the threat, but in April 2018 released a sketch of the man who threatened her. The day after the sketch was released, the president tweeted that the sketch was of a “nonexistent man” and “a total con job.”

Daniels (a.k.a. Stephanie Clifford) claimed in her complaint, which was first filed in New York, that the president had defamed her by accusing her of committing a crime: “[B]y calling the incident a ‘con job’ Mr. Trump’s statement would be understood to state that Ms. Clifford was fabricating the crime and the existence of the assailant, both of which are prohibited under New York law, as well as the law of numerous other states.” (The case was later transferred to a court in California.)

Last last month, Judge S. James Otero, indicated he was likely to dismiss the case, noting that Trump’s tweet was protected under free speech laws. Court documents posted Monday stated that the court considered Trump’s tweet “rhetorical hyperbole” protected by the First Amendment. Michael Avenatti, Daniels’ lawyer, says that he plans to appeal.

Another lawsuit related to Daniels’ non-disclosure agreement remains pending.

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you'll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you’ll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate