A federal judge in Manhattan on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by journalist Michael Wolff against First Lady Melania Trump, removing a legal obstacle that clears the way for Trump’s $1 billion defamation claim to proceed in state court.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, ruled that while the federal court had jurisdiction over the case, she was declining to exercise it. The decision allows the matter to move forward through the state court system, where Trump’s legal team has filed a substantial damages claim.
Vyskocil characterized Wolff’s federal filing as a “contorted” legal maneuver and “not how federal courts work.” In her written remarks from the bench, she stated, “It’s an inappropriate level of tactical gamesmanship,” and said she would not be “drafted to oversee an abusively presented spat,” according to court documents reviewed by multiple outlets.
What Happened
The dispute originated after Wolff made statements in an interview with The Daily Beast regarding the first lady and connections to Jeffrey Epstein, the financier who died in custody in 2019 while facing charges related to sex trafficking. The Daily Beast subsequently retracted an article titled “Melania Trump ‘Very Involved’ in Epstein Scandal: Author” after receiving a letter from Trump’s attorney, Alejandro Brito.
Trump’s legal team filed a state court action in October, claiming Wolff’s remarks caused “overwhelming reputational and financial harm.” When Brito moved the complaint to federal court, Vyskocil determined that while she had jurisdiction, the case was more appropriately handled in state proceedings.
The Reaction
In response to the original reporting, Trump issued a statement denying any association with Epstein and his alleged misconduct. “The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility, and respect. I do not object to their ignorance, but rather I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation,” she said.
Wolff’s legal filings argued that Trump and the president “have made a practice of threatening those who speak against them” with costly legal actions “to silence their speech, to intimidate their critics generally, and to extract unjustified payments.” He maintained in court documents that he never accused Trump of involvement in criminal activity.
Republican Rep. Nancy Mace stated at the time that Trump’s public response aligned with advocacy for victims. “Melania Trump stands with Epstein victims,” Mace said, citing the first lady’s support for legislation addressing deepfake intimate imagery. “The truth will prevail.”
What This Means
The dismissal from federal court effectively removes a procedural barrier that had kept the case in litigation limbo. With the matter now directed to state court, Trump’s defamation claim can advance through the standard civil litigation process, where a jury or judge will ultimately determine whether Wolff’s statements met the legal threshold for defamation and, if so, what damages might be awarded.
The ruling reflects judicial concerns about forum-shopping and the use of federal jurisdiction to delay state proceedings. Legal analysts suggest the decision underscores judicial reluctance to entangle federal courts in disputes that are more appropriately resolved at the state level, particularly when complex factual questions about reputational harm are at issue.
