In Trump Book Lawsuit, Boutrous Argues Injunction Would Be 'Futile'
Mary Trump was sued June 26 by Robert Trump, who has argued that she is forbidden by a settlement agreement associated with her grandfather's will from publishing information about her relationships with the president, Robert Trump and their sister, former Judge Maryanne Trump Barry of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, without their consent.
July 03, 2020 at 12:36 PM
3 minute read
The injunction sought by President Donald Trump's brother is "no longer capable" of stopping the release of his niece's upcoming book about the president's family relationships, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore Boutrous argued in court filings July 2.
And on Monday the book publisher moved up the release date for the tome by two weeks.
According to Boutrous, who is representing the Trump brothers' niece Mary Trump, publisher Simon & Schuster has already acted independently to print and ship thousands of copies of the book to retailers, meaning that any injunction from the court would be "futile."
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department on July 1 upheld a Dutchess County Supreme Court justice's temporary restraining order against Mary Trump but vacated the order issued against Simon & Schuster.
Mary Trump was sued June 26 by Robert Trump, who has argued that she is forbidden by a settlement agreement associated with her grandfather's will from publishing information about her relationships with the president, Robert Trump and their sister, former Judge Maryanne Trump Barry of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, without their consent.
In an affidavit signed July 2, Mary Trump wrote that she "lost any ability to prevent or delay the publication" of the book, "Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man," after Simon & Schuster formally accepted it in May. In addition, she wrote, Simon & Schuster is in control of printing, shipping and distributing the book to reviewers, booksellers and the news media.
The book had been set for publication July 28, but on Monday, the planned publication date was moved up to July 14, according to Simon & Schuster's website.
Attorneys representing Mary Trump, Simon & Schuster and First Amendment advocacy groups have argued in court papers that the book covers matters of public interest about which she has a right to speak under the First Amendment.
In a memorandum filed July 2, Boutrous argued that the settlement agreement's confidentiality provision should not be interpreted as a perpetual ban on family members' ability to speak about "issues of public concern, in particular where one of those family members has voluntarily made his life a public issue by running for and becoming president of the United States."
Judicial interference in the book's publication would be "historic" and "unprecedented," Boutrous wrote.
Boutrous also argued that the first copy of the settlement agreement, filed by Robert Trump's legal team, was redacted in a misleading way. A second copy of the agreement was filed under seal by the Gibson Dunn team.
"That the parties did not intend that the agreement impose the broad, sweeping, lifetime gag-order that plaintiff alleges is demonstrated not only by the agreement itself but the parties' conduct since its execution," Boutrous wrote. "Plaintiff and his siblings have made multiple public comments over the years regarding their family relationships."
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Courts Announce Closures in Observance of Jimmy Carter National Mourning Day
2 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1The Appropriate Exemption in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College
- 2DOJ, 10 State AGs File Amended Antitrust Complaint Against RealPage and Big Landlords
- 3New Partners at Cummings & Lockwood, Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey
- 4'Extra Government'?: NY Top Court Eyes Ethics Commission's Constitutionality
- 5South Texas College of Law Houston Selects New Dean
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250