Does the city of Springfield have a possible claim against the Trump/Vance campaign?

Question

During the presidential debate last week, Donald Trump brought up a claim (which had already been debunked) that illegal Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, have been stealing and eating pets. Since then, there have been bomb threats against the town, resulting in the closure of various city offices (including the city hall), closure of a middle school, evacuation of two elementary schools, and two colleges have closed their campuses (switching to virtual learning).

Statements by JD Vance have since made it clear that he and Trump knew this was false, they were just passing on a "story" to get the media to give attention to the immigration crisis:

If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do

But this lie has caused a direct economic impact on the city of Springfield, is that an acceptable cost to get this media attention?

Does the city have a legal case against Trump and/or his campaign committee? Trump knows that his supporters often take what he says very seriously, and his rhetoric often prompts people to take violent action (e.g. the Jan 6 insurrection). So while he may never have told anyone to take action against Springfield, it's a foreseeable result of "They're eating the dogs!".

Answer 1

No.

These statements do not fall into any category of unprotected speech, so Trump and Vance are fully protected by the First Amendment.

This protection extends only to the courts; voters are free to impose consequences at the ballot box instead.

Answer 2

No, governments cannot be defamed

From New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964):

For good reason, "no court of last resort in this country has ever held, or even suggested, that prosecutions for libel on government have any place in the American system of jurisprudence." City of Chicago v. Tribune Co., 307 Ill. 595, 601, 139 N.E.

As a government, the City of Springfield has no standing to sue for defamation.

Can the “illegal Haitian immigrants” sue?

Probably not.

To be defamation, the statement has to be about person identifiable to the third-party the statement is made to. It doesn’t have to identify them by name, but it has to provide enough information that an individual is brought to mind.

If you are trash talking a group, the group has to be small enough or specific enough that the individuals forming that group are the ones being defamed. The starting lineup of the 2024 Boston Celtics is probably such a group, Celtic’s fans isn’t.

Now, if instead of naming a city, they had named a small village where there are only a handful of “illegal Haitian immigrants“, that might be sufficiently precise to give those people standing to sue.

There’s no hard and fast rule, each case turns on its facts.

Answer 3

A class action defamation suit hasn’t been done before, at least not so far as 30 minutes of googling could reveal. However, if I was on a jury…

1. The Haitian immigrants are here legally, so as they keep claiming otherwise, that’s defamation or libel since it’s all online too. It caused real harm to these people who are receiving threats.
2. Honestly anyone, Haitian or not, probably has a CHANCE at a lawsuit, because the entire city is suffering from actual harm. If you have kids who go to those schools and had to get evacuated, it can be argued that they could have mental stress. Not to mention the financial burden of finding a sitter because of school cancellation.
3. The most important part of this would be case.. a lie was told, they KNEW it was a lie before they told it (the city manager told them there was no evidence of this before Trump said it at the debate), they chose to spread the lie anyway. Vance would later go on to admit it was fabricated. And even after the entire city, the governor, all publicly state this is untrue, they continue to spread the lie.. and real people are being harmed due to this lie, both financially and physically..

I mean.. if I practiced law in Ohio.. I’d give it a shot, for sure..

To prove defamation:

A false statement: The statement must be false and purport to be fact. (Check)

Publication: The statement must be communicated to a third party (Check)

Fault: The defendant must have at least some level of fault. The level of fault depends on whether the plaintiff is a public figure or a private individual:

Public figures: The defendant must have acted with actual malice, meaning they knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it was true or false (Check)

Damages: The plaintiff must show that the statement caused some harm to their reputation or caused other damages (Check)

It is on Trump to prove that what he says is true. The Haitians or people who have kids in the city do not have to prove what Trump said was false. If they can’t produce a single witness who claims they saw it all happen, they’d very likely lose the lawsuit.

I see a lot of comments talking about the group not being specific enough. But they are not claiming all Haitians are doing this. They are claiming the Haitian Immigrants who reside in Springfield OH and came to the city as part of the mayor’s revitalization efforts are doing this. It’s a pretty specific group. They aren’t saying “Haiti’s culture eat pets”, they have limited the lies to this one community. So.. Neimann Marcus v Lait (1952). However the only part that might make it fail is 10,000 immigrants might still be too large.. depends on the judge!