• Three-judge panel calls arguments “meritless” in ruling against $475 million lawsuit
• Two Trump appointees join unanimous decision affirming “Big Lie” phrase was opinion
• President’s legal team vows to pursue case despite dismissal with prejudice

ATLANTA, Ga. (TDR) — A federal appeals court unanimously rejected President Donald Trump‘s attempt to revive his defamation lawsuit against CNN, ruling Tuesday that the network’s use of the phrase “Big Lie” to describe his 2020 election claims was protected opinion, not a false statement of fact.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed a 2023 lower court dismissal, concluding Trump “has not adequately alleged the falsity of CNN’s statements” and calling his legal arguments “unpersuasive” and “meritless”. Two of the three judges on the panel were Trump appointees: Judge Kevin Newsom and Judge Elizabeth Branch, joined by Judge Adalberto Jordan, appointed by former President Barack Obama.

Trump sued CNN in October 2022 seeking $475 million in punitive damages, complaining about the network’s use of the term “Big Lie” to describe his unfounded claims that the 2020 election was stolen. His lawsuit cited five specific examples and argued the phrase created a “false and incendiary association” between him and Adolf Hitler, who coined the propaganda technique in Mein Kampf.

Lower court dismissal affirmed

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

U.S. District Judge Raag Singhal, also a Trump appointee, dismissed the case in July 2023 with prejudice, meaning it cannot be amended and refiled. Singhal wrote that CNN’s rhetoric was opinion, not a false statement of fact, and therefore could not support a defamation claim.

“Trump complains that CNN described his election challenges as ‘the Big Lie,'” Singhal wrote in his opinion. “Trump argues that ‘the Big Lie’ is a phrase attributed to Joseph Goebbels and that CNN’s use of the phrase wrongly links Trump with the Hitler regime in the public eye. This is a stacking of inferences that cannot support a finding of falsehood.”

The appeals panel endorsed that reasoning Tuesday, writing that Trump’s conduct “is susceptible to multiple subjective interpretations, including CNN’s” and therefore is “not readily capable of being proven true or false.” The judges noted Trump conceded the term was “to some extent, ambiguous” but assumed it was “unambiguous enough to constitute a statement of fact,” calling that assumption “untenable.”

“Trump’s argument hinges on the fact that his own interpretation of his conduct — that he was exercising a constitutional right to identify his concerns with the integrity of elections — is true and that CNN’s interpretation — that Trump was peddling his ‘Big Lie’ — is false,” the judges wrote.

Legal team defiant despite ruling

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

A spokesman for Trump’s legal team responded to the loss with a defiant statement: “There is no doubt that Fake News CNN defamed President Trump and all of the tens of millions of Americans who have rightly stated that the 2020 Presidential Election was rigged and stolen by Crooked Joe Biden and his handlers. President Trump will continue to hold the mainstream media accountable and will pursue this case against CNN to its just and deserved conclusion.”

The statement did not explain how Trump could pursue the case further given the dismissal with prejudice. Appeals to the Supreme Court would require extraordinary circumstances given the unanimous appellate ruling and the fact that two Trump appointees rejected his arguments.

Pattern of media lawsuits

The CNN case is the latest in a series of Trump lawsuits against media organizations he views as hostile. Last December, ABC News settled a defamation suit for $15 million over anchor George Stephanopoulos‘ mischaracterization of a jury verdict, saying Trump was “liable for rape” when he was actually found liable for sexual abuse.

In July, CBS News parent company Paramount settled a lawsuit Trump brought over a “60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump is currently attempting to revive his lawsuit against famed Watergate journalist Bob Woodward and pursuing a $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal over its reporting on the president’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

In September, a federal judge dismissed Trump’s $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, calling it full of “tedious and burdensome” language unrelated to the case. Trump has since refiled that suit. He also recently threatened to sue the BBC over an edited video of one of his speeches.

First Amendment implications

Legal experts noted the appeals court ruling reinforces established First Amendment protections for opinion and hyperbolic political commentary. To prove defamation, plaintiffs must demonstrate a statement is provably false, was made with actual malice when involving public figures, and caused reputational harm.

“Bad rhetoric is not defamation when it does not include false statements of fact,” Singhal wrote in the original dismissal, a principle the appeals court upheld. The ruling means news organizations retain broad latitude to characterize political claims and conduct using subjective terms, even when those characterizations draw historical parallels that public figures find offensive.

CNN declined to comment on the ruling. The network’s legal position throughout the case maintained that describing Trump’s election fraud claims as a “Big Lie” represented constitutionally protected opinion and fair commentary on matters of public concern.

Should media outlets face defamation liability for using historical comparisons in political coverage?

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10