What Melania Would Need to Survive an Anti-SLAPP (and Ultimately Win)
- Pin down falsity: Lean on longstanding, on-record accounts (Zampolli’s 1998 Fashion Week introduction) to establish the allegation is false. CNN Page Six
- Prove actual malice: Emphasize Biden’s reliance on a claim tied to a story that was retracted and the absence of independent verification — classic “reckless disregard” factors. Poynter
- Show harm with specificity: Demonstrate the measurable reputational and financial impact from republication across platforms (the demand letter previews this). Fox News
- Meet any Anti-SLAPP burden: In D.C. Superior Court, be prepared to show a likelihood of success on the merits (or satisfy evolving D.C. case law limiting discovery restrictions in Anti-SLAPP practice). C. Law Library
The Other Side of the Ledger
Biden’s potential defenses would include:
- Truth/substantial truth (if he can substantiate it),
- Lack of actual malice (he cited published material and a named author), and
- Opinion/qualified privilege arguments depending on how the statements are framed.
But the retraction of a key media story and the lack of corroborating, reliable sourcing introduce real exposure if a complaint is filed.
The Road Ahead
For now, this is a demand letter — not yet a lawsuit. But it sets the stage for a venue chess match and an early, high-stakes skirmish over Anti-SLAPP. If Melania files and clears procedural hurdles, the merits will hinge on whether Biden’s comments crossed from speculation into actionable falsehood expressed with reckless disregard.
***
For deeper insights and exclusive analyses (including venue strategy memos and Anti-SLAPP brief outlines), join me on Patreon at Legal Insights and Strategies by Samuel Lopez.
🔗 Follow USA Herald on X @RealUSAHerald: https://x.com/RealUSAHerald
