The appeals court concluded that the network’s description could not sustain a defamation lawsuit because the statement did not amount to a factual assertion.
“CNN’s subjective assessment of Trump’s conduct is not readily capable of being proven true or False,” Obama appointee Adalberto Jordan wrote, along with Trump appointees Kevin Newsom and Elizabeth Branch.
Trump could ask the full bench of the 11th Circuit to rehear the case or appeal to the Supreme Court. A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team signaled the president would appeal, saying he “will pursue this case against CNN to its just and deserved conclusion.”
A spokesperson for CNN declined to comment.
The new ruling Tuesday upholds a July decision by Florida-based U.S. District Judge Raag Singhal, also a Trump appointee, tossing Trump’s $475 million defamation suit against the network. Trump’s lawsuit, filed in 2022 by his then-personal attorney Lindsey Halligan, contended that the term “Big Lie” was meant to evoke comparisons to the Nazis, but Singhal said opinions, even objectionable ones, are not defamation unless they also make false factual claims.
The Atlanta-based appeals court agreed.
“Trump’s argument is unpersuasive,” the panel wrote. “Although he concedes that CNN’s use of the term ‘Big Lie’ is, to some extent, ambiguous, he assumes that it is unambiguous enough to constitute a statement of fact. This assumption is untenable.”
The appeals court’s decision is a blow to Trump’s score-settling legal...
From misinformation surrounding the tragic Tejas fighter jet crash at the Dubai Airshow, which claimed the life of the pilot, to a manipulated video falsely showing Indian Army Chief General Upend...