Cameron Miranda
President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to change federal libel laws to make it easier to sue media organizations for unfavorable coverage. However, there is no federal law on libel in the US, only state laws, which are subject to stringent First Amendment protections for the press and other speakers. Trump's threats to loosen libel laws are part of a larger effort to criticize and attack the credibility of the press. While the president has limited power to change libel laws, his comments reflect a broader trend of government attempts to manipulate the judiciary and suppress free speech.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Trump's opinion on libel laws | Trump has called the current libel laws a "sham and a disgrace" and believes they do not represent American values and fairness. He has also expressed a preference for the British system, where it is easier to sue for libel. |
| Trump's goal | Trump wants to make it easier to sue media organizations and news outlets for unfavorable coverage and criticism. |
| Obstacles to Trump's goal | Libel cases are based on state laws, which the president has no control over. The First Amendment also protects freedom of speech and the press, making it difficult for Trump to change libel laws. |
| Supreme Court rulings | The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times in favor of protecting freedom of speech and the press, including in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964. The Court has also dismissed petitions, such as that from Trump donor Steve Wynn, that could have potentially upended press protections. |
| Trump's actions | Trump has threatened to change libel laws and his private attorneys have sent threatening letters to publishers. He has also reached deals with law firms to avoid the prospect of punishing executive orders. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Trump's power to change libel laws
In an outburst, President Trump has expressed his desire to change the nation's libel laws, calling them a "sham and a disgrace" and stating that they do not represent "American values or American fairness". He has also said that he prefers the British system, where it is easier to sue for libel. Trump's chief of staff, Reince Priebus, confirmed that the administration was considering strengthening libel laws, adding that the news media should be "more responsible with how they report the news".
However, Trump's power to change libel laws is limited. As Floyd Abrams, one of the foremost authorities on the issue, points out, there is no federal libel law in the US. Libel is a tort, or civil wrong, for which the aggrieved party may sue for money damages, but it is governed by state law, not federal law. Each state can adopt whatever libel law it wants, as long as it aligns with the US and state constitutions. Trump, as the head of the federal executive branch, has little say in the matter.
To change the libel laws, Trump would need to either get the Supreme Court to overrule or get a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and the press, setting a high bar for any laws that might infringe on these freedoms. This bar is even higher for libel suits brought by public officials due to their societal power. For a public official to win a libel suit, they must prove that the defendant published a false and defamatory statement and that they did so maliciously.
Despite his limited power to change libel laws, Trump has still tried to exert his influence. He has reached deals with five prominent law firms, including Paul Weiss, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, to provide pro bono legal services and make other changes in exchange for the administration rescinding executive orders. This reflects Trump's ability to bend law firms to his will and avoid White House sanctions.
Breaks in California: 10-Minute Options and Labor Laws
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Libel lawsuits and the British system
Libel lawsuits in the British system have been criticised for their negative impact on press freedom. For example, the British government has been accused of quietly killing the Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) Bill, which aimed to reduce the number of libel lawsuits by giving courts the power to suppress them.
Under the SLAPP Bill, a defamation claim could be swiftly dismissed if the judge believed that the claim was brought to silence a critic rather than to protect someone's reputation. The bill also would have applied to writing or journalism about matters in the public interest, such as allegations of wrongdoing or threats to health or the environment.
The current English defamation laws require the claimant to prove that a statement was made by the defendant and that it was defamatory. The claimant is not required to prove that the content of the statement was false. However, if the claimant is found guilty of launching a defamation lawsuit despite the statement being accurate, the defendant may counterclaim for fraud or recovery of unjustified settlement funds.
In addition to case law, there are several examples of authors and publishers refusing to print work out of fear of libel suits. For instance, in 2004, cyclist Lance Armstrong was paid £300,000 by the Sunday Times after a libel claim. After Armstrong's doping was revealed in 2012, the Sunday Times stated it might attempt to recover the money it lost. In another case, Holocaust denier David Irving filed a libel suit concerning Deborah Lipstadt's book, 'Denying the Holocaust'. Irving lost the case and was forced to pay all of Penguin's trial costs, which amounted to £2 million.
Citing Laws in APA: What You Need to Know
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Libel cases against Trump
In 2023, former US President Donald Trump threatened to change federal libel laws. This came after his private attorneys sent a letter to the publisher of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House", warning of libel liability if the book were released. However, it is important to note that federal libel laws do not exist in the US, and the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and the press.
Despite this, there have been several libel cases against Trump. One notable case is E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump, which involves two related lawsuits by American author E. Jean Carroll against Trump. The first suit, filed in November 2019, accused Trump of defamation after he denied her allegation of sexual assault. The second suit, filed in November 2022, renewed the defamation claim and added a claim of battery under the Adult Survivors Act. The total damages awarded to Carroll across both cases amounted to $88.3 million, and both cases are currently under appeal.
Another case involves Trump donor Steve Wynn, who sued The Associated Press for reporting on claims of sexual misconduct made against him. Wynn asked the Supreme Court to overturn the New York Times v. Sullivan ruling, which protects news companies from defamation suits. However, the Supreme Court turned down his request, upholding the existing libel laws.
In addition to these cases, Trump has also reached deals with several law firms, including Susman Godfrey, Paul Weiss, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, to avoid the prospect of punishing executive orders. These deals have raised concerns about the potential influence of the Trump administration on prominent law firms.
County Clerks and Federal Law: Who Enforces the Rules?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Libel laws and the First Amendment
Libel refers to written defamation, while slander refers to oral defamation. The First Amendment rights of free speech and a free press often clash with the interests served by defamation law. The press exists largely to report on issues of public concern, but individuals also possess a right not to be subjected to falsehoods that impugn their character. This clash between these two rights can lead to expensive litigation, million-dollar jury verdicts, and negative public views of the press.
The U.S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence on defamation and free speech has been significantly influenced by landmark cases that have tested the boundaries of the First Amendment. Three such cases have played a central role in shaping defamation law: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Gertz v. Robert Welch, and Rosenblatt v. Baer. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court grappled with the intersection of free speech and defamation in the context of public officials. The case stemmed from an advertisement published in The New York Times that criticized actions taken by public officials in Alabama during the civil rights movement. L.B. Sullivan, a Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel suit against the newspaper, alleging that the advertisement contained defamatory statements. An all-white and biased jury found in favor of the Commissioner for $500,000. The New York Times appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the decision, finding that the law applied by the Alabama courts was constitutionally deficient for failing to provide the safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press that are required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments in a libel action brought by a public official.
In the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court found that a journalist who published erroneous information about a public figure without knowing it was wrong was constitutionally protected. The justices wrote that limitations on libel laws reflect a "profound national commitment to the principle" of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The New York Times case also opened the door for ordinary citizens, not just media defendants, to use a First Amendment Defense. The Supreme Court found following this case that free speech rights extend to individuals and don’t disappear simply because the defendant is not a large media corporation.
In conclusion, while the First Amendment provides robust protections for free speech and freedom of the press, it is not without limits. Defamation, which includes both libel and slander, remains a valid cause of action for individuals seeking to protect their reputations from false and harmful statements. However, the Supreme Court has made clear that defamation laws must be applied in a manner that respects the First Amendment rights of defendants, particularly when it comes to statements regarding public officials or issues of public concern.
Lexis Nexis: A Tool for Attorneys at Norfolk Law Library?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$32.95
Trump's administration and libel threats
Trump's administration has been marked by several instances of libel threats and attempts to change federal libel laws, despite the latter not existing.
In 2018, Trump renewed his pledge to 'take a strong look' at libel laws, denouncing them as a "sham" and stating that they do not represent "American values or American fairness.". He reiterated his desire to make it easier for people to sue news organizations and publishers for unfavorable coverage and defamation. Trump's criticism of libel laws aligns with his long-expressed hostility towards traditional press freedoms.
Trump's private attorneys have sent threatening letters to publishers, including the publisher of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," warning of libel liability. However, the First Amendment sets a high bar for any laws that might infringe on the freedoms of speech and the press, especially for libel suits brought by public officials.
The Trump administration has also been accused of manipulating the judiciary to suppress speech and retaliate against protected speech. In the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident, the administration unsuccessfully attempted to transfer his case to Louisiana, which was seen as an attempt to suppress dissent and manipulate federal court jurisdiction.
Additionally, Trump reached deals with five prominent law firms, including Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP, to avoid the prospect of punishing executive orders. These deals involved the firms providing free legal work for various causes and the administration withdrawing letters from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
While Trump has repeatedly threatened to change libel laws, the reality is that state laws control libel, and any changes would require either Supreme Court intervention or a constitutional amendment.
Alabama's Abortion Law: Enforceable or Not?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Trump has said that he wants to "open up" the libel laws to make it easier to sue media organizations for unfavorable coverage. He has called the current libel laws "a sham and a disgrace" and believes they do not represent American values or fairness.
No, Trump cannot change the libel laws. There is no federal law on libel, and state laws control libel. All such laws are subject to stringent First Amendment protections for the press and other speakers that the Supreme Court has imposed through cases such as the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan decision in 1964.
In the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court found that a journalist who published erroneous information about a public figure without knowing it was wrong was constitutionally protected. The justices wrote that limitations on libel laws reflect a "profound national commitment" to the principle that debate on public issues should be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."
Yes, Trump has tried to change the libel laws by threatening letters and executive orders. However, these attempts have been unsuccessful as the power to change the laws does not lie with the President.
Trump's threats to change the libel laws are part of a larger effort to criticize and attack the press's credibility. They also send a chilling message to those who speak out against the administration, potentially silencing dissent.
