A federal appeals court has upheld a previous ruling preventing President Donald Trump from suing CNN for defamation.
In a decision that has conservatives scratching their heads, the appeals court panel has affirmed the dismissal of Trump’s whopping $475 million defamation lawsuit against the cable news giant.
Trump is suing CNN over the network’s use of the term “Big Lie” to describe his claims about the 2020 election, Newsmax reported.
This saga began when Trump filed the lawsuit, arguing that CNN’s repeated use of the phrase was a deliberate attempt to smear him by invoking comparisons to Nazi propaganda and Adolf Hitler.
His complaint tallied over 7,700 instances where he believed CNN linked his actions to such historical atrocities.
It’s no small accusation, and widely viewed as yet another media pile-on against a figure who challenges the progressive narrative.
District court Judge Raag Singhal, a Trump nominee, first tossed out the case, ruling that CNN’s statements were opinions, not verifiable facts, and thus not grounds for defamation.
However, the decision came as a blow to those who feel the corporate media hides behind “opinion” to sling mud without consequence.
Trump appealed, hoping for a different outcome, but the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, consisting of Judges Adalberto Jordan, Kevin Newsom, and Elizabeth L. Branch, stood firm.
Interestingly, Newsom and Branch were also Trump appointees, which adds a layer of irony to this defeat.
The appeals court’s eight-page ruling didn’t mince words, stating that Trump failed to prove the falsity of CNN’s statements.
“Trump has not adequately alleged the falsity of CNN’s statements,” the judges wrote.
The court continued by arguing that CNN never directly equated Trump’s actions to Hitler’s, despite the loaded implication of the term “Big Lie.”
“To be clear, CNN has never explicitly claimed that Trump’s ‘actions and statements were designed to be, and actually were, variations of those [that] Hitler used to suppress and destroy populations,’” the judges noted.
Yet, the implication was loud and clear to anyone paying attention.
The court also dismissed the sheer volume of CNN’s use of the phrase as irrelevant to whether it was false or defamatory.
For Trump supporters, this feels like ignoring the cumulative effect of a media campaign designed to paint a damning picture.
Adding insult to injury, the panel found that Trump didn’t sufficiently show CNN acted with actual malice, a key requirement in defamation cases involving public figures.
That’s a high bar, and one that often leaves those targeted by such smears feeling the deck is stacked against them when taking on media behemoths.
However, the term “Big Lie” isn’t just a neutral descriptor; it’s a rhetorical sledgehammer meant to evoke the worst historical parallels.
The narrative is part of a broader pattern where the corporate media weaponizes language to discredit conservative voices.
It’s not hard to understand why Trump and his base feel targeted.
Yet, the court’s logic, while frustrating, isn’t without grounding in legal precedent, as opinions, even harsh ones, are protected speech.
Trump sought a hefty $475 million in punitive damages, a figure that speaks to the depth of his grievance.
Many supporters likely saw this as a chance to finally hold a media outlet accountable for what they perceive as relentless bias.
However, the courts had other plans.
The ruling also underscores the uphill climb public figures like Trump face in defamation suits.
The “actual malice” standard is a fortress, and breaking through it requires more than just hurt feelings or perceived slights.
Conservatives might argue it’s a standard that lets the media off too easily.
For now, this chapter closes with Trump on the losing end, though it’s unlikely to be the last we hear of his grievances with CNN.
Our comment section is restricted to members of the Slay News community only.
To join, create a free account HERE.
If you are already a member, log in HERE.