Appeals Court Tosses Out ‘Meritless’ Trump Lawsuit Against CNN
A federal appeals court panel has rejected President Donald Trumpโs attempt to revive his lawsuit against CNN over the networkโs repeated use of the term โBig Lieโ to characterize his claims about irregularities in the 2020 election. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that CNNโs wordingโdespite its historical connotations and its association with Adolf Hitlerโfalls under First Amendment-protected opinion rather than a provable factual assertion.
The three-judge panel, which notably included two judges appointed by Trump, concluded that CNNโs choice of language, while controversial, could not sustain a defamation claim.
โTrumpโs argument hinges on the fact that his own interpretation of his conduct โ i.e., that he was exercising a constitutional right to identify his concerns with the integrity of elections โ is true and that CNNโs interpretation โ i.e., that Trump was peddling his โBig Lieโ โ is false,โ the unanimous panel wrote. โHowever, his conduct is susceptible to multiple subjective interpretations, including CNNโs.โ
Because statements of opinion cannot be proven true or false, the court determined CNNโs phrasing did not meet the legal threshold for defamation.
โCNNโs subjective assessment of Trumpโs conduct is not readily capable of being proven true or False,โ wrote Judge Adalberto Jordan, an Obama appointee, joined by Trump appointees Kevin Newsom and Elizabeth Branch.

Trump now has the option to request a rehearing by the full 11th Circuit or appeal to the Supreme Court. A spokesperson for Trumpโs legal team indicated he plans to continue challenging the ruling, saying he โwill pursue this case against CNN to its just and deserved conclusion.โ CNN declined to comment.
The appeals courtโs decision affirms a July ruling by U.S. District Judge Raag Singhalโalso appointed by Trumpโwho dismissed Trumpโs $475 million lawsuit last year. That lawsuit argued that CNN used the phrase โBig Lieโ to intentionally evoke Nazi comparisons, but Singhal found that even harsh or offensive opinions are protected unless they include false statements of fact.
The appellate judges agreed, writing: โTrumpโs argument is unpersuasive. Although he concedes that CNNโs use of the term โBig Lieโ is, to some extent, ambiguous, he assumes that it is unambiguous enough to constitute a statement of fact. This assumption is untenable.โ
This decision represents another setback in Trumpโs broader effort to challenge major media outlets he says have misrepresented him. While he has secured some favorable settlementsโincluding from ABC and CBSโs parent companyโhis lawsuits against the New York Times and CNN have faced significant resistance in court. Most recently, Trump criticized and threatened legal action against the BBC over edits made to his January 6, 2021, speech on the Ellipse.













