BREAKING Judge Tosses Wolff Suit Clearing Path For 1B Melania Claim
A federal judge on Friday dismissed a preemptive lawsuit brought by author and journalist Michael Wolff against First Lady Melania Trump, sharply criticizing the filing as a “contorted” attempt that does not align with how federal courts operate.
U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee serving in Manhattan, declined to exercise jurisdiction over the case despite acknowledging a genuine underlying dispute between the parties. In a 45-page opinion, Vyskocil described the litigation as marked by an “inappropriate level of tactical gamesmanship” and said she would not allow the court to be drawn into “an abusively presented spat.”
“While Plaintiff and the First Lady have a real dispute, they must litigate it according to the same procedures as everyone else,” Vyskocil wrote. “Plaintiff asks for a declaration that, if the First Lady sues him, he deserves to win. That is not how the federal courts work.”
The ruling stems from statements Wolff made linking Melania Trump to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on child sex trafficking charges. Last year, Trump’s attorney Alejandro Brito sent Wolff a demand letter calling on him to delete the statements, warning that failure to do so would leave the first lady with “no alternative” but to sue for defamation. The letter cited “overwhelming reputational and financial harm.”
The distinction at the center of the reported ruling is between acknowledging a disagreement and accepting the particular lawsuit used to bring it before a court. Vyskocil's quoted language does not suggest that the two sides have no conflict. It says that the existence of a real dispute does not remove the need to follow the same procedures that apply to other litigants. That procedural issue is the focus of the report.
Wolff's filing is described as preemptive because it sought a declaration before the threatened defamation action had been brought. In the report quoted above, the judge characterized that request as asking the court to decide in advance that he should prevail if the first lady sued him. Her criticism therefore concerned how the dispute had been presented, rather than an announcement that every underlying allegation had been resolved.
The demand letter forms the other part of the sequence described here. Trump's attorney called for the statements to be removed and warned of a defamation suit if Wolff did not comply. The report then moves to Wolff's attempt to obtain a declaration and the judge's refusal to exercise jurisdiction. Keeping those steps separate makes it easier to understand what the reported decision addresses.
The headline's reference to a potential claim should also be read alongside the limited ruling described in the report. Dismissing one filing is different from awarding damages in another proceeding. Nothing in the report says that a billion-dollar judgment has been entered or that a separate defamation claim has already been decided. The quoted opinion instead emphasizes that any real dispute must be litigated through the appropriate procedures. The immediate development reported here is the dismissal of Wolff's preemptive case, with the broader disagreement between the parties remaining distinct from that procedural result.