Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Bid to Revive Defamation Suit Against CNN, Dealing Blow to Media Lawsuits

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court panel on Tuesday delivered a stinging rebuke to President Trump’s efforts to punish news organizations for their coverage of his false claims about the 2020 election, rejecting his bid to revive a $475 million defamation lawsuit against CNN and calling the case “meritless.”

The unanimous decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which included two judges appointed by Mr. Trump himself, affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of the suit and underscored the broad protections afforded to media outlets under the First Amendment. The ruling represents another setback in Mr. Trump’s sprawling campaign to sue journalists and broadcasters for what he has called “fake news,” a strategy that has yielded mixed results but has increasingly strained his legal resources amid his second term.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Florida in July 2022, accused CNN of defaming Mr. Trump by repeatedly using the phrase “the Big Lie” to describe his baseless assertions that the election was stolen from him. Mr. Trump, who has embraced the term “Big Lie” as a Nazi-era reference to Adolf Hitler’s propaganda tactics, argued that the network’s reporting falsely implied he was a fascist and sought to damage his political standing.

In a 14-page opinion, the three-judge panel — consisting of Judges Kevin C. Newsom and Elizabeth L. Branch, both Trump appointees, and Judge Adalberto J. Jordan, appointed by President Barack Obama — dismissed the claims as opinion rather than verifiable fact. “Trump’s conduct — when he lost the 2020 election but claimed he won, and attempted to stay in power — is susceptible to multiple subjective interpretations, including CNN’s,” the judges wrote. They added that the phrase, while rhetorically charged, did not assert a provably false statement, a key element required for defamation.

The decision upholds a July 2023 ruling by U.S. District Judge Raag Singhal, also a Trump appointee, who tossed the case early in its proceedings. Judge Singhal had described the suit as an attempt to “chill protected speech,” noting that bad rhetoric alone does not constitute libel. Mr. Trump’s lawyers appealed, arguing that the lower court erred in not allowing discovery to uncover internal CNN communications that might reveal malice. But the appeals court found those arguments unpersuasive, labeling them “likewise meritless.”

A spokesman for Mr. Trump’s legal team, Steven Cheung, signaled an intent to escalate the fight. “President Trump will pursue this case against CNN to its just and deserved conclusion,” Mr. Cheung said in a statement, hinting at a possible petition to the Supreme Court. CNN declined to comment, though network executives have previously hailed such victories as vindications of journalistic independence.

The ruling arrives at a fraught moment for Mr. Trump, whose administration is embroiled in multiple high-stakes legal battles, including ongoing appeals in his New York hush-money case and challenges to executive orders on immigration and education funding. Insiders in Washington described the decision as a “body blow” to the president’s broader media strategy, which has included settlements with ABC News and CBS for undisclosed sums but repeated defeats against The New York Times and others. “This isn’t just a loss; it’s a message from his own judges that the First Amendment isn’t up for litigation,” said one Republican operative close to the White House, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

At Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday evening, aides reported a tense atmosphere as Mr. Trump, fresh from a donor briefing, reviewed the opinion with his lawyers. According to two people familiar with the discussions, the president expressed fury over the involvement of his appointees, muttering that they had “gone rogue” and demanding a review of their records. By midnight, he had posted on Truth Social: “RIGGED COURT! CNN’s Big Lie is the real defamation — they stole the election narrative from ME! We fight on to the Supreme Court. #FakeNews!”

The outburst echoed a pattern of late-night frustrations that have plagued the administration, from the Epstein files controversy to recent shutdown brinkmanship. Democrats seized the opportunity, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries tweeting: “Trump’s war on the press just suffered another defeat. Time to focus on governing, not gagging.” Even some conservative commentators expressed unease; National Review’s Rich Lowry wrote that the suits were “distractions that make him look thin-skinned.”

Legal experts predict the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority including three Trump appointees, may decline to take the case, viewing it as a routine application of defamation law. “This is settled territory post-Sullivan,” said Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment scholar, referring to the landmark 1964 Supreme Court ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan that raised the bar for public figures to win libel claims. “Trump’s team knows it’s a long shot, but it keeps the grievance alive for his base.”

The episode highlights the dual-edged sword of Mr. Trump’s judicial legacy: While his appointees have bolstered conservative priorities on issues like abortion and voting rights, they have also rebuffed his personal legal salvos, from immunity challenges to media disputes. As one former White House counsel put it: “He built the bench, but it doesn’t always sit for him.”

For CNN and the broader press, the victory reinforces a strategy of defiance over settlement. “We won’t be intimidated,” said a network executive, speaking anonymously to avoid antagonizing the administration. Yet with Mr. Trump’s threats to revamp libel laws and FCC regulations, the chill on coverage persists.

As the appeals clock ticks toward a potential Supreme Court filing, the ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role as a check on executive overreach — even when the executive helped shape the bench. In a term defined by chaos, from G20 walkouts to domestic shutdowns, this courtroom defeat may prove a rare moment of clarity: The law, for now, bends toward free speech.