“This would appear to be a legitimate suit.” You show great confidence in the merits of this still-unfiled action. In a suit by Trump, as in any other defamation suit filed by a public figure, three outcomes are readily imaginable: plaintiff wins, defendant wins but case is colorable enough not to trigger sanctions, and defendant wins and court further determines that plaintiff filed it without a reasonable basis or otherwise in violation of a state anti-SLAPP statute. If you are right that Trump’s case will pose no particular difficulties of proof even under the Sullivan public figure threshold of actual malice, well, then, being headed toward victory on the merits he needn’t worry about sanctions. I think Turkewitz is raising the possibility that a judge will not view the merits as favorably as you do, and if not, a sanctions issue might arise.

We do know from Trump’s own mouth that he has filed defamation suits from motives other than an expectation of victory at trial. To quote a report from March, Trump “said in an interview that he knew he couldn’t win the suit [against biographer Timothy O’Brien] but brought it anyway to make a point. “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.” (reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/that-time-trump-sued-over-the-size-of-hiswallet/2016/03/08/785dee3e-e4c2-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html?utm_term=.558f01bde172 )

Precisely. Under Sullivan, why should Trump be subject to sanctions for suing the press for defamation? This would appear to be a legitimate suit. Indeed, it should not be difficult for him to prove malice.

So why does Turkewitz claim that such a suit would be subject to sanctions?

Unless, by sanctions, you mean that the Supreme Court would sanction – i.e., approve – such a suit.

Or is there something I’m missing here?

>your question – and the Turkewitz article – implies that somehow Sullivan does not apply to presidential candidates.

I have no idea what this means. Sullivan recognizes a category of public figures, but it does not bar defamation suits by them, even if it holds them to a more demanding standard than it does private figures; a winning or losing presidential candidate, White House adviser, or other public figure can sue under Sullivan and under some circumstances win.

I also think the phrase “his destruction of their arrogated superiority” begs about three separate questions, but that’s not a legal question, so let that pass.

However, there are many others who seem to have strong grounds for defamation suits: Steve Bannon comes to mind immediately. It seems that in his case, the Sullivan standards have been ignored, violated, and trampled into the mud.