A federal judge has thrown out author Michael Wolff’s lawsuit against First Lady Melania Trump, concluding that he went to court too soon and that the dispute did not belong in federal court at this stage.
In a 45-page opinion dated May 22, 2026, U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the Southern District of New York declined to take jurisdiction. She recognized that Wolff and the First Lady have a genuine disagreement, but she ruled that his request for a declaratory judgment—asking the court to declare in advance that he would win any future defamation case—was not a proper use of the federal courts.
“While Plaintiff and the First Lady have a real dispute, they must litigate it according to the same procedures as everyone else,” Judge Vyskocil wrote. “Plaintiff asks for a declaration that, if the First Lady sues him, he deserves to win. That is not how the federal courts work.”
The clash began after Wolff publicly linked Melania Trump to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted of sex offenses. Melania Trump’s lawyer, Alejandro Brito, responded with a demand letter seeking a retraction and warning that a defamation suit seeking substantial damages could follow.
Rather than wait for a lawsuit, Wolff sued in New York state court. He asked a judge to declare that his comments were protected by the First Amendment or had been misread, and he pointed to what he called a pattern of Trump family litigation meant to silence critics. The case was later removed to federal court.
After the dismissal, a spokesperson for Melania Trump said the First Lady was pleased with the result. She has repeatedly denied any connection to Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell, saying she never visited Epstein’s private island, never flew on his planes, and knew nothing of his crimes.
The ruling was strictly procedural. Judge Vyskocil cited concerns about forum shopping and tactical timing and did not decide whether Wolff’s statements were defamatory. Melania Trump remains free to file a defamation claim in the proper court if she chooses.
Wolff, whose books have been highly critical of the Trump family, has stood by his reporting and framed the case as a test of press freedom. The decision highlights the limits of using declaratory-judgment actions to head off potential defamation suits and makes clear that even prominent figures must follow ordinary legal rules.
The outcome leaves the underlying factual and legal questions unresolved. Any future case would have to be brought in the usual way, after a complaint is filed and the parties have an opportunity to present evidence and argument under standard procedures.
