According to a spokesperson for The New York Times, Donald Trump has reimbursed the newspaper with $392,000 to cover legal fees incurred from his unsuccessful lawsuit against the publication and its journalists.
This lawsuit, stemming from a 2018 investigation into his financial affairs that involved the disclosure of confidential tax records, concluded with Judge Robert R. Reed dismissed the case in favor of The New York Times and its journalists.
Judge Protects Journalists; Trump Alleges Interference
The judge determined that the journalists’ actions were protected by the New York Constitution. Trump’s claims included an accusation of “tortious interference” against the journalists, alleging that they improperly contacted his niece, thereby causing her to breach a settlement contract with the Trump family dating back to 2001.
- California RESIDENTS To RECEIVE $500 MONTHLY PAYMENTS In New Guaranteed Income Program: Here Is Who Is Eligible
- Us Job Market Booms With 272,000 New Jobs, But Unemployment Rises Slightly To 4.0%
- Credit Scores Of 720+ See Improved Loan Rates This Week
- Examining The Facts: Fact Check On IRS $8700 Stimulus Check Eligibility & Payment Dates
- Gas Prices On Downward Trend As Fourth Of July Road Trips Approach: AAA
The reporting series, authored by David Barstow, Susanne Craig, and Russ Buettner, was later awarded the 2019 Pulitzer Prize in Explanatory Reporting.
Last year, the judge stated his decision to dismiss the claim against The Times, citing the newspaper’s reporting on a matter of significant public interest as legal justification.
The judge cited recent amendments to New York’s anti-SLAPP law, which allows defendants to swiftly dismiss lawsuits targeting constitutionally protected conduct, as the basis for dismissing the defendants and ordering payment of their legal fees.
A spokesperson for The Times referred to the anti-SLAPP statute as a potent safeguard for upholding press freedom.
In a statement, Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander emphasized, “This decision demonstrates the significant role of the state’s recently amended anti-SLAPP statute in safeguarding press freedom.” He further added, “The court’s ruling serves as a clear message to individuals seeking to misuse the judicial system to suppress journalists.