Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

A panel of appeals court judges on Nov. 18 upheld a ruling against President Donald Trump in a case he brought against CNN.

Trump did not adequately show that CNN defamed him when it reported that he promoted what it described as the “Big Lie” when challenging results from the 2020 presidential election, judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit concluded.

Trump said that the phrase was intended to link him to Adolf Hitler and propaganda used by the Nazis in Germany, but the term is ambiguous enough to cast doubt on that allegation, according to the new ruling.

“Second, Trump’s argument hinges on the fact that his own interpretation of his conduct—i.e., that he was exercising a constitutional right to identify his concerns with the integrity of elections—is true and that CNN’s interpretation—i.e., that Trump was peddling his ‘Big Lie’—is false. However, his conduct is susceptible to multiple subjective interpretations, including CNN’s,” the per curiam opinion from Circuit Judges Elizabeth L. Branch, Adalberto Jordan, and Kevin Newsom said.

The same court held in a different case that one person’s subjective assessment is not rendered false by another person’s different conclusion.

“Trump has not adequately alleged the falsity of CNN’s statements. Therefore, he has failed to state a defamation claim,” the court stated.

The White House declined to comment.

Lawyers for CNN and Trump did not immediately return inquiries.

U.S. District Judge Anuraag Singhal in 2023 had dismissed the lawsuit, finding CNN’s usage of the “Big Lie” term was repugnant but not defamatory.

Trump had also argued that the district judge should have analyzed more than the five statements he outlined in his complaint, but those statements included CNN’s usage of the Nazi-linked term, the panel said.

The panel also rejected Trump’s attempts to allow him to file an amended complaint or move for reconsideration from Singhal of the decision.

The district court acted within its discretion when dealing with motions to amend and reconsider, according to the appeals court.