Judge Tosses Wolff Suit, Clearing Path For $1B Melania Claim
Wolff filed suit against Trump seeking to block her from suing him for $1 billion for alleged defamatory claims he made regarding her association with Jeffrey Epstein.
“It’s an inappropriate level of tactical gamesmanship,” said Manhattan Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, an appointee of President Donald Trump.
Vyskocil said she would not be “drafted to oversee an abusively presented spat,” yet she recognized that both sides have a “real dispute.”
Last year, the first lady’s lawyer issued Wolff a letter demanding he delete the statements he made about Trump and threatening that she would have “no alternative” but to sue him if he didn’t.
That spurred him to sue her in state court in October.
Trump’s lawyer, Alejandro Brito, had the complaint moved to federal court, where Vyskocil declared that while federal court does have jurisdiction, she was declining to exercise it and “dismisses this case to be litigated like any other.”
A Melania Trump spokesperson said that the first lady “is proud to continue standing up to, and fighting against, those who spread malicious and defamatory falsehoods as they desperately try to get undeserved attention and money from their unlawful conduct.”
The 56-year-old’s lawyer previously claimed that Wolff’s statements caused her “overwhelming reputational and financial harm.”
The first lady has denied any association with Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of child sex trafficking.
“The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today,” the first lady said in an April press conference.
“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 added at the time.
Wolff claimed in his lawsuit that the president and first lady “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 and North Korean-style confessions and apologies.”
He added that some of his statements were taken out of context and some were protected speech, including a statement he made that claimed the Trumps have a “sham marriage, trophy marriage,” that his lawsuit says was a “fair and justified” opinion.
It also said in his lawsuit that Wolff never accused the first lady of being involved with criminal activity associated with Epstein.
The Daily Beast retracted an article last summer, titled “Melania Trump ‘Very Involved’ in Epstein Scandal: Author,” which was based on an interview with Wolff, after the outlet received a letter from Brito.
In the interview that formed the basis for the retracted piece, Wolff said he reported that the first lady was “behind the scenes” dealing with the situation at the White House, but was not involved criminally.
Republican Rep. Nancy Mace praised Melania Trump at the time for coming out against Epstein.
“Melania Trump stands with Epstein victims,” Mace said, citing the first lady’s advocacy for legislation addressing the distribution of fake intimate images. “The truth will prevail.”
Democratic lawmakers also commented following the statement.
Rep. Robert Garcia called for a public hearing, writing, “We agree with First Lady Melania Trump’s call for a public hearing,” Garcia said. “We encourage Chairman Comer to schedule a hearing immediately.”
Garcia said the remarks renewed attention on the broader investigation.
In her remarks, Melania Trump called on Congress to take action.
“Now is the time for Congress to act,” she said.
She urged lawmakers to allow victims to testify under oath.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
Clarence Thomas Blasts Supreme Court For Refusing Florida Case
Florida argued the two states were undermining public safety by allowing individuals without legal immigration status — and, in some cases, insufficient English-language proficiency — to obtain commercial trucking licenses despite federal standards intended to govern interstate transportation safety.
The dispute gained national attention after a deadly 2025 crash on the Florida Turnpike involving an undocumented truck driver reportedly licensed through California or Washington.
According to the lawsuit, the driver allegedly made an illegal U-turn and was unable to properly interpret roadway signage, resulting in a collision that killed three people.
Joined by Justice Samuel Alito, Thomas argued the high court had a constitutional obligation to hear the interstate dispute because Florida had no other legal forum available to challenge another state’s policies.
The court’s majority denied Florida’s request without explanation.
The case underscores the growing national clash over immigration enforcement, state licensing authority, and whether states with looser immigration policies are creating broader public safety consequences for the rest of the country.
Thomas ripped the majority for refusing to hear the lawsuit since disputes between states can only be brought before the Supreme Court.
“If this Court does not exercise jurisdiction over a controversy between two States, then the complaining State has no judicial forum in which to seek relief,” Thomas wrote.
Thomas argued that Florida’s allegations against California and Washington raised serious public safety concerns, warning that failures to properly follow federal commercial driver licensing (CDL) laws can create dangerous conditions on American roadways.
Thomas pointed to the fatal Florida highway crash involving truck driver Harjinder Singh, who he said “could not read the road signs,” and argued Florida deserved a chance to pursue its claims.
Two blue states – California and Washington – issued Singh a CDL.
“An illegal alien who cannot read English road signs cannot drive an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer,” Thomas wrote.
“Federal law and regulations prohibit States from providing commercial driver’s licenses to applicants unless they pass a driver’s test, sufficiently understand the English language, and show appropriate immigration status,” he added.
Thomas argued that while the Supreme Court of the United States may have broad discretion when deciding whether to hear ordinary appeals, disputes between states occupy a different category because the Constitution grants the high court exclusive jurisdiction over those cases.
“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given,” Thomas wrote.
He also accused the court of failing to follow the Constitution by refusing to hear disputes between states.
“This Court has adopted a discretionary approach to its exclusive original jurisdiction based on policy judgments that are in conflict with the policy choices that Congress made in the statutory text,” Thomas wrote.
Thomas argued that if Florida, California, and Washington were separate sovereign nations rather than American states, a dispute involving one government allegedly allowing unsafe drivers into another jurisdiction could trigger major diplomatic conflict.
Thomas suggested that in an international context, such disputes would likely be addressed through international courts, treaties, or direct government action.
“By entering the Union, States agree to instead have such disputes resolved by this Court,” he wrote.
The issuance of commercial driver’s licenses to non-citizens came under increased scrutiny from the Department of Transportation last summer following a series of deadly crashes involving undocumented immigrant truck drivers.
Last September, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced stricter federal requirements for non-citizens seeking commercial driver’s licenses, part of a broader push by the Trump administration to tighten transportation and immigration enforcement standards, Fox News reported.
Duffy also warned that California could risk losing federal transportation funding if the state continued allowing commercial licenses to remain active for individuals deemed ineligible under revised federal guidelines.
