Slapp suite filed by wolffe against tump. State or federal

1. Filing first: Wolff’s strategy and the state‑court origin

Wolff’s lawyers filed a 15‑page declaratory judgment/anti‑SLAPP complaint in New York Supreme Court in Manhattan on October 21, 2025, framing Melania Trump’s demand letter that threatened a $1 billion defamation suit as a SLAPP tactic intended to chill speech and to trigger New York’s anti‑SLAPP remedies—dismissal, fee shifting, and a declaratory judgment that his speech was protected ^{[2] [3] [1]}. Multiple outlets reported that Wolff sought not only vindication under New York’s statute but the subpoena power and discovery that New York state procedures would afford him to depose witnesses he says can speak to Epstein‑related allegations ^{[2] [6]}.

2. The removal: when a state case became federal

Despite Wolff’s state filing, documents show the dispute did not remain solely in state court: a notice of removal was filed December 29, 2025, transferring the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a move recorded in docket reports and contemporaneous legal summaries ^{[4] [5]}. The removal raises ordinary federal jurisdictional questions—diversity of citizenship and whether a federal declaratory judgment is ripe—issues noted by legal observers reviewing the removal ^[4].

3. Why both venues matter: anti‑SLAPP law and forum shopping

The difference between state and federal forums is critical because anti‑SLAPP protections are state statutory creations that vary and are often unavailable in federal court absent explicit federal analogue; commentators and legal analyses have flagged how plaintiffs sometimes seek federal venues to avoid state anti‑SLAPP defenses, and defenders of anti‑SLAPP laws argue that removing to federal court can deprive speakers of those protections ^{[7] [8]}. Source reporting explicitly notes Wolff invoked New York’s anti‑SLAPP statute in his initial state filing, and other legal observers have described the strategic tug‑of‑war over forum as familiar in high‑stakes speech litigation ^{[2] [1] [4]}.

4. Competing narratives and hidden incentives

Wolff’s public posture—that he sued to force discovery and to blunt intimidation—aligns with freedom‑of‑speech advocacy and journalism groups’ concerns about SLAPP tactics, while Melania Trump’s threatened $1 billion demand framed by her attorneys as a defense of reputation reflects a countervailing interest in suppressing demonstrably false claims ^{[3] [9]}. Reporting suggests both sides have incentives beyond pure legal rights: Wolff gains leverage and publicity and the ability to subpoena high‑profile witnesses, while the Trumps can use aggressive threats to dissuade outlets and authors from repeating incendiary allegations; analysts have warned that forum selection can be a tactical tool to tilt the playing field ^{[6] [10] [7]}.

5. What to watch next: procedural gatekeepers and ripeness

Legal commentary accompanying the filings flagged two likely early battlegrounds—whether a federal court will apply or permit New York’s anti‑SLAPP protections after removal and whether a declaratory judgment is sufficiently ripe absent an actual suit filed by Mrs. Trump—questions that could determine whether the case proceeds on the merits or is dismissed on procedural grounds ^[4]. Court watchers should watch motions to remand, motions to strike or dismiss under anti‑SLAPP grounds, and any judges’ early rulings on ripeness and jurisdiction, because those decisions will decide whether Wolff achieves his stated aim of forcing depositions and public testimony ^{[4] [2]}.