Absence Of Malice
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a civil action brought one Don against another of the junior variety
In this case, we consider an appeal by plaintiff Don Blankenship from the district court’s award of summary judgment to defendant Donald Trump, Jr. on Blankenship’s claims under West Virginia law of defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and civil conspiracy. Because we agree with the district court that the record is insufficient to show that Trump, Jr. made a defamatory statement with actual malice, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
Plaintiff
In 2010, Blankenship was serving as CEO of Massey Energy Company when an explosion occurred at one of Massey Energy’s coal mines, killing 29 individuals. Blankenship was charged with several related federal crimes, both felony and misdemeanor counts, and ultimately was convicted of only one misdemeanor offense for conspiracy to violate federal mine safety standards. See United States v. Blankenship, 19 F.4th 685, 688-69 (4th Cir. 2021). He served one year in prison.
After plaintiff’s release from custody
After his release from prison, Blankenship announced in January 2018 that he intended to run for office to represent West Virginia in the United States Senate. After losing in the May 8, 2018 primary election, Blankenship alleged that certain political and news media sources, including Trump, Jr., had conspired to ensure his defeat by referring to Blankenship as a “felon,” even though he had been convicted only of a misdemeanor offense. See Blankenship v. NBCUniversal, LLC, 60 F.4th 744, 750 (4th Cir. 2023) (affirming award of summary judgment in favor of numerous defendants on similar claims by Blankenship). On May 3, 2018, Trump, Jr. had published on a social media website a statement encouraging “the people of West Virginia to make a wise decision and reject Blankenship!” Later that day, a CNN news reporter posted on the same social media website a statement that “[President Donald J.] Trump’s son urges West Virginia Republicans to reject Blankenship, who responds by labeling [Trump, Jr.] part of the ‘establishment.’” The CNN reporter’s statement included a link to a CNN news article, which stated that Blankenship had “recently finished serving a yearlong sentence following a misdemeanor conviction.”
Trump, Jr. “reposted” on that social media website the CNN reporter’s statement and also stated: “Ha, now I’m establishment? No, I’m realistic & I know” that United States Senator Joe Manchin likely would “run ads [in a general election against Blankenship] featuring the families of those 29 miners killed due to actions that sent [Blankenship] to prison.” When a third party responded to Trump Jr.’s post that “Manchin [would not] do that. His ads are usually ab[ou]t him,” Trump, Jr. responded: “[Manchin’s] probably never run against a felon.”
Lack of malice
On appeal, Blankenship argues that the district court improperly credited Trump, Jr.’s deposition testimony that he was unaware that Blankenship had been convicted only of a misdemeanor, and that the district court failed to draw all inferences in Blankenship’s favor…
The district court further observed that Trump, Jr. testified during his deposition that he based his statement that Blankenship was a “felon” on “numerous” sources across various media referring to Blankenship in that manner. This testimony was supported by the record, which showed that prior to Trump, Jr.’s comment various news sources referred to Blankenship as a “felon.”
As a result
Because we conclude that the record fails to show that Trump, Jr. published his statement with actual malice, we necessarily affirm the district court’s award of summary judgment on Blankenship’s claims of false light invasion of privacy and civil conspiracy.
(Mike Frisch)