Former President Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit against ABC News and journalist George Stephanopoulos has cleared its first hurdle. U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga of the Southern District of Florida has denied ABC's motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed to discovery and potentially trial. The suit raises interesting legal questions about the boundaries of protected speech, particularly in the context of reporting on legal proceedings.
The Stephanopoulos case stems from a series of lawsuits involving E. Jean Carroll in the Southern District of New York that concluded earlier this year, so let's visit those first.
The Carroll Cases
In 2019, E. Jean Carroll accused then-President Donald Trump of sexually assaulting and raping her three decades earlier. Trump responded by publicly denying the allegations and questioning Carroll’s credibility. As a result, Carroll filed a defamation lawsuit against him (“Carroll I”). Carroll later filed a second lawsuit (“Carroll II”) in 2022, seeking damages for sexual assault and additional defamatory statements made by Trump. Both cases were overseen by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in the Southern District of New York. Carroll II was tried first while a pre-trial issue in Carroll I was under appeal.
In 2023, the jury in Carroll II found Trump guilty of sexual abuse and defamation, but not rape as defined by New York Penal Law. The jury awarded Carroll $2 million in compensatory damages. Trump challenged this verdict, arguing that the damages were excessive because the jury did not find him liable for rape. Judge Kaplan noted that the legal definition of rape in New York is narrower than its common usage and upheld the jury’s decision.
When Carroll I resumed, Trump counterclaimed that Carroll had defamed him by continuing to assert that he had raped her. Judge Kaplan dismissed these counterclaims, stating that the jury’s verdict in Carroll II established that Trump had “digitally raped” Carroll. In January 2024, a jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million on her defamation claim against Trump.
The Stephanopoulos Case
The current lawsuit arises from news coverage of these prior Carroll cases by George Stephanopoulos, the host of the Sunday morning news program This Week with George Stephanopoulos. In a March 10 interview with Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Stephanopoulos discussed the two juries that awarded Carroll her two wins against Trump. He asked the congresswoman why she endorsed Trump even though "judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape."
That isn’t exactly what happened. As noted, the 2023 jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse, but not rape. The judge later clarified that the sexual abuse Trump was found liable for, involving forcible penetration with his fingers, meets the common understanding of "rape."
Stephanopoulos repeated the phrase "found liable for rape" several more times. A screenshot of a newspaper headline with a similar statement was also shown during the broadcast. Rep. Mace, who herself was a victim of rape, pushed back against the news host. The exchange was later publicized on social media.
Upset over this characterization, Trump took these statements to court. He filed a lawsuit in a Miami federal court against ABC, ABC News, and Stephanopoulos alleging defamation for the host’s comments. The former president alleges that the news coverage falsely stated that he was found liable for rape. In his complaint, he asserts that Stephanopoulos acted "with actual malice or with a reckless disregard for the truth."
Defendants Try to Get the Suit Dismissed
The defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit on three different grounds: “substantial truth,” “fair report privilege,” and “collateral estoppel.” But District Judge Cecilia Altonaga turned all three of these arguments down. We'll break down each argument in turn.
Stephanopoulos’ Statement Was Not “Substantially True”
As to the first, the defendants asserted that Stephanopoulos’s statements were "substantially true," meaning that the gist of the statements was true, even if not perfectly accurate. However, the court concluded that this did not warrant dismissal of the lawsuit.
Judge Altonaga noted that the statements made by Stephanopoulos during the broadcast could be interpreted as defamatory, especially given the context in which they were made. The statements could be confusing or ambiguous and thus susceptible to a defamatory interpretation. The judge emphasized that whether the statements were substantially true is a question for the jury. This is important to note because judges cannot make factual findings when dismissing a lawsuit. But the judge herself did not decide anything other than it should go before a jury.
No “Fair Report Privilege”
As to the second argument, the defendants claimed that Stephanopoulos is shielded by the “fair report privilege” available under Florida law, which protects the media when they report accurately on information received from government officials or contained in public records. The fair report privilege requires that the publication or broadcast be a "substantially correct account" of information contained in public records or from a government source.
But Judge Altonaga was not persuaded that Stephanopoulos’s statements were a substantially correct account of either Judge Kaplan’s findings or the jury’s verdict. She noted that Stephanopoulos’ statements did not make clear that he was reporting on Judge Kaplan’s interpretation of the jury’s verdict rather than the verdict itself.
The judge also emphasized that the privilege does not protect media reports that omit important context and render the report misleading. In this case, the jury expressly rejected a charge of rape under New York Penal Law, and Stephanopoulos’ statements did not include this critical detail. She found that a reasonable viewer could have been misled by the statements, which did not sufficiently clarify the distinction between the jury’s findings and Judge Kaplan’s subsequent interpretation.
The brief and insufficient reference to Judge Kaplan’s findings did not provide enough context to prevent the statements from being misleading. As a result, Judge Altonaga determined that the fair report privilege did not apply.
Estop Right There
The third argument, “collateral estoppel,” is a legal doctrine that precludes a party from re-litigating an issue that has already been decided against them in a prior action where they had a fair opportunity to fully litigate the point. The defendants argued that Trump's claims are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel because the issues raised in the current lawsuit had already been decided in prior litigation (Carroll I and Carroll II).
The defendants contended that Judge Kaplan's finding in Caroll I that it was substantially true that Trump had raped E. Jean Carroll should preclude Trump from claiming defamation based on statements related to that finding. The defendants also argued that the jury's verdict and Judge Kaplan's subsequent findings in Carroll II, which included the determination that Trump had digitally raped Carroll, should also preclude Trump from claiming defamation.
But collateral estoppel is an equitable doctrine that requires a case-by-case analysis considering fairness to the parties and the nature of the proceedings, and Judge Altonaga was not persuaded that Judge Kaplan’s findings should be given conclusive effect beyond the cases in which they were made. She noted that Judge Kaplan’s finding in Carroll I was made "in the alternative" to a separate finding, which is much less impactful than if it were the main finding.
Also, Judge Kaplan’s findings involved a different set of statements by a different party, focusing on the substantial truth of Carroll’s accusations rather than Stephanopoulos’s statements. The findings in Carroll II, which were made in the context of reviewing a jury's damages award, did not discuss how to accurately report on the jury’s findings.
Trump’s Lawsuit Is Saved
Overall, Judge Altonaga determined that the defendants had not met their burden of proof on any of the grounds for dismissal and that the issues raised were appropriate for resolution by a jury rather than on a motion to dismiss. She denied the motion, meaning that Trump’s lawsuit against Stephanopoulos and ABC can continue. While a win for the former president, it is still early in the process and nothing has been firmly resolved yet.
Related Resources:
- Trump Found Liable for Sexual Abuse and Defamation in Carroll Case (FindLaw's Courtside)
- Libel, Slander, and Defamation Law: The Basics (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
- Classified Documents Case Against Trump Unexpectedly Dismissed (FindLaw's Courtside)
