Publishers of Mary Trump’s tell-all book can go ahead with publication following a ruling by a New York appellate judge on Wednesday which reversed a lower court’s decision to pause the publication of a much-anticipated account by President Trump’s niece.
Sooo…where is my popcorn?
Good thing I just had a case of beer delivered. This could be fun!
Hopefully this is just an appetizer for his tax returns.
Yesterday some people were excited about the TRO. Today,
the judge ruled that Simon & Schuster was not a party to the confidentiality agreement and therefore could not be bound by it…
Glad that is out of the way.
However, who’s going to ever want to publish any scandal book in the future without at least a putative Trump NDA? I think Trump has a future business opportunity that he can even run from prison, “Get your Trump NDA here and watch your book go to #1 on Amazon and NYT bestseller list!”
“He also said, however, that the 20-year-old agreement to protect the Trump family’s privacy may have been altered by the fact that Donald Trump had become the president during that time.”
Can anyone provide an explanation as to why that would be so?
IANAL, but it seems to me as at least a former journalist that becoming such an undisputed public figure changes the legal equation, just as it can in things like libel, slander, etc.
Looks like another “Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day” (month) for The Donald 
Maybe the fact that Trump became president makes him a public figure in a different way, so that the agreement to protect his privacy doesn’t apply.
Just make up the NDA and let Trump sue you for, well, does it matter for what?
Hey Donnie if you resign we promise not to buy her book.
Defamation is about untrue statements. As far as I can tell, the only action relevant is public disclosure of private facts.. In the case of a public figure, a person who lives and dies on his public persona, a person famous for being famous, the only issue is whether such facts are of public concern. In the case of a person who can fire nuclear missiles, pretty much everything is of public concern. For example, anything that would show a propensity to be dishonest or untrustworthy would be very much of public concern if the person was, say, the fucking president of the United States.
Common good vs. right to privacy?
Trump’s character and actions now affect the rest of us.
https://www.raquestia.com/magazine/1G1-65230204/the-right-to-privacy-vs-the-common-good
The answer is blowing in the wind.
I saw this last night and honestly wondered if it was legit.
I’m left wondering if they didn’t see it (it’s so obvious) or if it was done intentionally? I wouldn’t be surprised either way
Short version: Trump was only a real-estate swindler when the agreement was signed – so he may have been entitled to his privacy at the time. Twenty years have passed. Trump now is president and candidate for re-election – so perhaps there is a “legitimate public interest” in the information he still wants hidden.
I could do you a longer, more Latin version, but there’s no need.
Silly that the TPM article did not include even a short version.
And for the record, here’s Judge Scheinkman’s longer version (slightly condensed):
It bears noting that, while parties are free to enter into confidentiality agreements, courts are not necessarily obligated to specifically enforce them. Whether to issue an injunction is a matter of equity. […] In determining whether to grant specific performance thorough the use of the equitable remedy of an injunction, courts should balance the legitimate interests of the party seeking to enforce the contract with other legitimate interests, including, especially in this context, the public interest. This balancing concept takes into account whether the provisions of the confidentiality agreement are temporally and geographically reasonable and the extent to which the provisions are necessary to protect the plaintiff’s legitimate interests […]. The confidentiality agreement here does not have any temporal or geographic limitation. The passage of time and changes in circumstances may have rendered at least some of the restrained information less significant than it was at the time and, conversely, whatever legitimate public interest there may have been in the family disputes of a real estate developer and his relatives may be considerably heightened by that real estate developer now being President of the United States and a current candidate for re-election. Drawing the appropriate balance may well require in camera review of the book sought to be enjoined. Stated differently, the legitimate interest in preserving family secrets may be one thing for the family of a real estate developer, no matter how successful; it is another matter for the family of the President of the United States.
Trump’s month of June started with one book, the Bible.
Then Bolton’s book in mid-June.
And, July starts with another book.
And now we know, Trump can’t even read.
