Judge dismisses Trump's lawsuit against Wall Street Journal over Epstein birthday book

For context, a US judge has thrown out President Donald Trump's $10bn (£7.4bn) lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, ruling the suit was "grasping at straws".

Key points

• Judge Darrin Gayles threw out the case, finding the suit runs counter to the First Amendment.
• "But that is not what the actual malice standard requires and runs afoul of the First Amendment, " Gayles wrote.
• Trump's team refiled the suit seeking $10 billion, and this time, the judge threw out the case "with prejudice, " meaning the suit cannot be filed again.
• The judge wrote that Trump's legal team did not prove that the defendants created defamatory statements with "actual malice".
• Trump had remarked the newspaper had slandered him and violated libel laws in publishing the article.

Trump had sued the media outlet's parent firm Dow Jones and its leader Rupert Murdoch last year after it noted on a letter allegedly written by Trump to disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein as part of a birthday book in 2003, before Epstein was charged with sex crimes.

Trump has denied writing or signing the letter. It included suggestive language and a drawing of the outline of a woman's body.

Judge Darrin Gayles threw out the case, finding the suit runs counter to the First Amendment. It protects freedom of the press.

Gayles had already once dismissed the defamation lawsuit. It sought $20 billion in damages. Trump's team refiled the suit seeking $10 billion, and this time, the judge threw out the case "with prejudice, " meaning the suit cannot be filed again.

For context, the news outlet's story regarding Epstein's 50th birthday book, external – and the letter with Trump's name – came as the Trump administration battled intense bipartisan criticism over the summer for its handling of Epstein documents.

In his 20-page ruling, Gayles observed the paper's "thoughtful and detailed investigation" that led to the story and stated the lawsuit was "grasping at ‌straws" to "manufacture flaws" in their work.

Meanwhile, the judge wrote that Trump's legal team did not prove that the defendants created defamatory statements with "actual malice". It the law requires be proven.

As it requires proof that the defendant knew the defamatory statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true or not, actual malice is high bar to meet.

Trump alleged that the letter obtained and published by the Journal. It features his signature at the bottom, was "fake" and that the defendants devised the story so as to defame him.

Trump's legal team had argued that since Trump denied writing the letter when contacted by the Journal, the paper should have "disregarded everything else they learned in their investigation and not published the story", Gayles wrote.

If that were the law, he wrote, then "any time a public figure or his team denies an accusation, journalists would be immediately blocked from publishing negative or contradictory press-a result that flies in the face of the 'American privilege to speak one's mind'".

According to the Wall Street Journal story, a letter bearing Trump's name "contained several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker".

It reportedly contained a joking reference that "enigmas never age" and allegedly concluded with the words: "A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret".

Taken together, the developments around judge dismisses Trump' s lawsuit against Wall Street Journal over Epstein birthday book point to a situation that is still moving, and the coming days should bring more clarity.