Trump v. Trump: Journalists’ Urging Source to Breach Nondisclosure Contract Is Constitutionally Protected
From Wednesday’s decision by New York trial court judge Robert R. Reed; (for a similar case from the California courts, though not involving the Trumps, see here):
In this lawsuit, Donald J. Trump …, a former president of the United States, asserts various claims against his niece, Mary L. Trump …, The New York Times Company d/b/a The New York Times … [and] journalists Susanne Craig …, David Barstow … and Russell Buettner …, for their actions related to the publishing of The Times’ 2018 article, “Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches from His Father.” …
The crux of plaintiff’s claim is that a reporter for The Times caused his niece, Mary Trump, to take 20-year-old tax and financial documents held by her lawyer and disclose them in violation of a 2001 settlement agreement. The Times, it is alleged, then used those documents to publish a lengthy article in 2018 that reported that plaintiff had allegedly participated in dubious tax and other financial schemes during the 1990s. In this action, plaintiff does not specifically dispute the truth of any statements made in the article. Rather, plaintiff alleges that The Times defendants’ interaction with Mary Trump resulted in her breach of certain confidentiality provisions of the 2001 settlement agreement, rendering The Times and its journalists liable for tortious interference with contract, aiding and abetting tortious interference with contract, unjust enrichment, and/or negligent supervision. Plaintiff demands $100 million in damages.
Plaintiff’s claims against The Times defendants, as an initial matter, fail as a matter of constitutional law. Courts have long recognized that reporters are entitled to engage in legal and ordinary newsgathering activities without fear of tort liability—as these actions are at the very core of protected First Amendment activity.
Plaintiff’s claims also fall short inasmuch as they fail to assert the necessary elements of tortious interference, unjust enrichment, and negligent supervision. More particularly, plaintiff’s tortious interference claim is dismissed because The Times’ purpose in reporting on a story of high public interest constitutes justification as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim fails because it is duplicative of his other claims. His claim for negligent supervision, moreover, is dismissed due to the lack of any allegations that The Times reporters committed any wrongful act falling outside of the scope of their normal work duties. Finally, the newly amended anti-SLAPP law mandates that plaintiff pay defendants’ attorneys’ fees and costs because plaintiff’s claims plainly constitute a strategic lawsuit against public participation, and, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, New York’s anti-SLAPP law is directed to more than just defamation-based lawsuits.
An excerpt from the free speech analysis:
Plaintiff argues that The Times’ conduct is not constitutionally protected because its actions were tortious in nature and it is well established that “[c]rimes and torts committed in news gathering are not protected by the First Amendment.” According to plaintiff, The Times defendants’ activities, even if considered within the scope of activities covered by the New York Constitution, were nonetheless coercive, harassing, vindictive, misleading, purposeful, and in blatant disregard of the plaintiff’s contractual rights, and, as such, deserve no protection.
Plaintiff is mistaken. His characterization of The Times’ actions as
Article from Latest
