A federal judge has dismissed author and journalist Michael Wolff’s preemptive lawsuit against First Lady Melania Trump, declining to rule on whether statements Wolff made about her and Jeffrey Epstein were defamatory or protected by the First Amendment. U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the Southern District of New York issued the 45-page decision on May 22, 2026, concluding that the dispute should be handled through ordinary legal proceedings rather than through Wolff’s attempt to obtain a ruling before a conventional defamation case. The case, Wolff v. Trump, was filed after Melania Trump’s legal team threatened Wolff with a defamation lawsuit seeking as much as $1 billion over statements he had made concerning the first lady and Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died in federal custody in 2019. Rather than wait for a potential defamation action, Wolff filed his own lawsuit seeking a declaration that his statements were not defamatory and that he would prevail against any subsequent claim. His original action was filed in New York state court before being removed to federal court in December 2025.
Judge Declines to Exercise Jurisdiction
Judge Vyskocil determined that the federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction because Wolff and Trump are citizens of different states and the threatened defamation case involved potentially $1 billion in damages. However, she declined to exercise that jurisdiction under the doctrine of prudential abstention. The judge wrote that the parties had a genuine dispute but said Wolff could not use a separate federal action to effectively litigate his defenses before Trump’s threatened defamation case proceeded through the normal legal process. The court also criticized what it characterized as an “inappropriate level of tactical gamesmanship” surrounding the litigation.
The ruling is significant because it does not determine whether Wolff’s statements were true, defamatory or constitutionally protected. Instead, Vyskocil concluded that those substantive questions should not be decided in Wolff’s preemptive action. The court specifically declined to conduct what it viewed as an advance adjudication of a potential defamation dispute. The court also noted that the underlying controversy involved questions that could be addressed through traditional procedures for defamation litigation between private parties. The May 22 order therefore dismissed Wolff’s case without resolving the central factual and constitutional issues surrounding his statements.
Appeal Moves to Second Circuit
A clerk’s judgment formally entered in favor of Melania Trump on May 26, repeating that the court had jurisdiction but was declining to exercise it and was dismissing the case under prudential abstention. The dispute has not ended with the district court ruling. Wolff filed a notice of appeal in June, and the case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit under case number 26-1674. According to the appellate docket, Wolff’s opening brief is scheduled to be filed on October 1, 2026. The appeal means the Second Circuit could review the district court’s decision to dismiss the case. At this stage, however, the appellate proceeding does not constitute a ruling on whether Wolff’s underlying statements were defamatory.
The controversy remains connected to a broader public dispute over statements concerning Melania Trump, Epstein and the boundaries of defamation law. Because the district court expressly declined to reach the merits, the legal questions surrounding the statements themselves remain unresolved in this particular case. For now, the federal court’s ruling establishes a procedural outcome rather than a finding about the truth or falsity of Wolff’s allegations. The next major development is expected to come through the Second Circuit as the appeal moves forward.
