Judge Smacks Down Latest Trump Lawsuit On Grounds Of Being Really, Really Stupid

Where does he even find lawyers anymore?

Trump’s newest lawyer questions a witness.

This past week, our Effervescent God of the Heavens Donald Trump sued The New York Times for $15 billion for committing the indelible crime of being mean to him. Bad New York Times! As Ned Beatty once said, you have messed with the primal forces of nature, and you will atone!

That was Wednesday. On Friday, in possibly one of the fastest legal dismissals since some ancient Greek chiseled the Dreros inscription into a bunch of rocks, a federal judge sua sponte booted the case. (Sua sponte is Latin legalese that means “get that weak shit outta here.”) This, as we understand it based on the reactions of a dozen lawyers or so we follow on Bluesky, is incredibly rare. Especially when a judge does it a mere 48 hours after the plea is filed.

The judge justified the dismissal on Rule 8 grounds. This is the rule in federal procedures that says legal pleadings such as this one must have “a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” Apparently, it is very rare for a pleading to get rejected for Rule 8 violations, because most lawyers filing in federal courts are not galactic morons who do not understand the assignment.

In dismissing the case, the judge chastised Trump and his lawyers for wasting the court’s time and energy by filing an 85-page pleading that read more like a press release with its pages upon pages upon pages of bragging about Trump’s incredible achievements.

Thus we learned that Trump won the 2024 election in historic fashion, that he gave a “remarkable performance” in The Apprentice, which we are told was “one of the top-rated shows of all time,” that the Times violated “journalistic standards” in reporting on Trump because the paper hates him, that it actively was trying to help him lose, and that the president’s “unprecedented personal brand alone is reasonably estimated to be worth at over [sic] $100,000,000,000.”

And that is just a tiny, tiny sampling. The whole thing seems more like a long-winded book proposal for Trump’s memoirs.

The judge had to slog through all this crap one turgid, overwritten, overblown turn of phrase after another. He was not happy about it. So not happy that this is how his response begins:

As every member of the bar of every federal court knows (or is presumed to know),

Again, we’re not lawyers, but we’ve read enough legal filings to know that if the judge is beginning a document like he’s talking to a grade schooler who left class for the bathroom without permission or a hall pass, he’s about to eviscerate you. Metaphorically, of course.

Even assuming that each allegation in the complaint is true ... a complaint remains an improper and impermissible place for the tedious and burdensome aggregation of prospective evidence, for the rehearsal of tendentious arguments, or for the protracted recitation and explanation of legal authority putatively supporting the pleader’s claim for relief.

Tedious, burdensome, tendentious ... if someone is describing your writing this way, we recommend changing careers or letting AI write your legal briefs from now on.

New Wonkette commenting rule: All your comments must be this erudite.

The judge continues:

As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective — not a protected platform to rage against an adversary. A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner.

We have no idea what the Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner even is, and we still laughed and winced at this passage. We lauinced at it, you could say.

The judge then proceeded to explain to Trump’s lawyers what the purpose of a pleading is, and that this one stands “unmistakably and inexcusably athwart the requirements of Rule 8.” He then warned the lawyers to be more dignified and professional, while also giving them 28 days to amend and refile the complaint. The new version, he warned, better be 40 pages, tops.

Donald Trump Sues New York Times For $15 Billion Jillion For 'Endorsing Kamala Harris,' Other Crimes

Guessing at what Trump’s lawyers must have been thinking in filing this Tolstoy novel of a legal pleading is a mug’s game, but we’ve been wondering anyway. It’s not as if Trump himself was going to read it. No judge in his or her right mind was going to accept this monstrosity. Though to be fair, that does eliminate a lot of judges Trump himself has appointed. Aileen Cannon would probably compliment him on his literary prowess just before she set a briefing schedule.

For shits and giggles, we googled the names of the three lawyers who put their signatures on this garbage. Daniel Epstein, we learned, specializes in administrative law and regulatory policy. Edward Paltzik, who looks like a 20th-generation clone of Stephen Miller, allegedly focuses his practice on several constitutional amendments, including the First. Which makes it highly ironic he’s suing a newspaper for exercising its right to endorse Kamala Harris.

And Alejandro Brito is a business lawyer who specializes in commercial, franchise, and trade secrets disputes. Here’s a trade secret: We hope he got his retainer up front.

None of these guys have a resume that quite matches the height of Alina Habba, with her booming career as counsel for her husband’s parking garage company before she found the Trump gravy train. But Trump is pretty clearly scrambling to find lawyers who will sign their names to legal documents for him. We’re not sure even Jimmy McGill would take a case from him.

Okay, that’s a lie. Jimmy McGill would totally take Trump on as a client. Even if it is a step down from the drug dealers he usually represents.

[Trump pleading / Judge’s response]

Support independent media, because we were smart enough to not go to law school.