Florida free speech law could aid Wall Street Journal in Trump defamation suit
Florida is among 38 states with what are called 'anti-SLAPP' laws.
- Trump sued the Wall Street Journal for $10 billion over a story about his birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein.
- Florida's anti-SLAPP law may apply to the federal lawsuit, potentially leading to dismissal and attorney fees for the Journal.
- Anti-SLAPP laws aim to deter frivolous lawsuits targeting free speech.
- The lawsuit's timing coincides with pressure on Trump to release more Epstein-related documents.
A law central to First Amendment protections in Florida may apply in a federal lawsuit from President Donald Trump against the Wall Street Journal, which came after a report about a birthday letter from Trump to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Anti-SLAPP laws (SLAPP stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation") are meant to deter people from filing frivolous lawsuits based on someone’s speech or publication, and Florida is among 38 states that have such laws. In some states and court jurisdictions, it could mean a dismissal and awarding attorney fees to the affected party.
But federal courts have taken different opinions about whether these laws apply in federal court, and Florida’s law is particularly unusual in that it may award attorney fees to the losing party in federal courts, said David Keating, the president for the Institute for Free Speech.
“It’s meant to help people’s First Amendment right to speak,” he said.
The president's lawsuit comes after the Journal reported July 17 that, among many letters from Epstein's family and friends in a leather-bound birthday book gifted for his 50th birthday in 2003, one had Trump's signature. That letter ends with "Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret," the Journal reported.
Trump denied the letter and called the story “malicious” and “defamatory.” The day after it was published his attorney filed a lawsuit in Miami federal court, naming the Wall Street Journal, publisher Dow Jones & Company and its parent company News Corporation as defendants. It also named News Corporation's Rupert Murdoch, chief executive Robert Thomson and the two reporters who wrote the story.
Anti-SLAPP laws are a "substantive statute" and news outlets meet the law's requirements that the lawsuit breaches free speech in connection with a public issue, said Deanna Shullman, a media attorney based in West Palm Beach. Therefore, the Journal would have to prove whether the lawsuit has no merit. "All the Wall Street Journal would have to show was that the lawsuit was meritless," Shullman said.
The timeliness of this lawsuit holds significance, since it comes as Trump’s Republican base is pressuring his administration to release more documents in Epstein’s case. The calls to release the documents reverberate online on his Truth Social platform among conspiracy theorists and MAGA loyalists, and also among Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Congress.
A representative of the Wall Street Journal declined comment on this story, including questions of whether the newspaper would use the state anti-SLAPP law. A request for comment to Trump's attorney who filed the lawsuit, Alejandro Brito, is pending.
SLAPPing down a lawsuit
Trump is seeking $10 billion in damages for defamation, but traditionally anti-SLAPP laws are designed in ways to allow defendants to move to dismiss a case early in the lawsuit before discovery, said Jennifer Nelson, a senior staff attorney with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
The critical part about anti-SLAPP laws is that they serve as a deterrent from filing substantial suits, since prior to their existence wealthy individuals would bring defamation lawsuits just to "punish" speech rather than win, Nelson said.
"They wanted to drag the publication or the journalist through very expensive, time-consuming litigation as a punishment," Nelson said.
Keating noted there haven’t been any definitive rulings in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that would give a hint of what direction judges may interpret the law. But Shullman noted that appellate judges have OK'd attorney fees under the law.
This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@gannett.com. On X: @stephanymatat.