A federal judge dismissed Michael Wolff's preemptive lawsuit against Melania Trump, ruling the author used improper tactics to bypass standard litigation.
A federal judge in Manhattan has dismissed an aggressive preemptive lawsuit filed by biographer Michael Wolff against First Lady Melania Trump, ruling that the author’s attempt to bypass standard litigation procedures was an improper tactical maneuver designed to force a premature federal resolution. U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, presiding over the Southern District of New York, declined to exercise discretionary federal jurisdiction over the case. In an unsparing memorandum opinion, the Trump-appointed jurist criticized Wolff’s attempt to dictate the timeline and venue of a potential civil dispute, rebuking the author for using the bench as an instrument for strategic maneuvering. While acknowledging that a genuine legal dispute exists between the writer and the first lady, Judge Vyskocil made clear that the court would not serve as a referee for a preemptively engineered battle.
“They must litigate it according to the same procedures as everyone else,” Vyskocil wrote, dismissing the case on the grounds of prudential abstention. The litigation originated from a blistering cease-and-desist letter dispatched by counsel for the first lady, demanding that Wolff formally retract published remarks regarding her background and personal life. The demand letter, sent by attorney Alejandro Brito, warned that Melania Trump would be “left with no alternative” but to pursue a massive civil defamation complaint, potentially seeking upwards of $1 billion in damages, should Wolff refuse to issue an immediate public correction. Rather than acceding to the retraction demand or waiting for a formal summons, Wolff launched an offensive legal maneuver.