Samantha Markle’s long-running attempt to sue Meghan Sussex for defamation reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit this week. What began as a bid to revive a dismissed case quickly turned into a difficult hearing for her lawyer, who struggled under sharp questioning from the panel. The dispute centers on Meghan’s comments in her Oprah Winfrey interview and the Netflix series Harry & Meghan. However, the judges appeared unconvinced that the appeal had any legal ground.
The Lawsuit Collapsed in District Court
The case started in Florida, where Judge Charlene Honeywell dismissed Samantha’s claims in 2023. Samantha alleged Meghan defamed her by suggesting they had little relationship growing up. She also claimed Meghan allowed analyst Christopher Bouzy to imply she spread online hate. Judge Honeywell found the statements non-actionable. She ruled they were either protected opinions, substantially true, not defamatory, or barred by lack of actual malice. This was especially clear because the Netflix series included Samantha’s own attorney explaining her social media account had been hacked.
Oral Arguments Show Weakness in Appeal
At the appellate hearing, Samantha’s lawyer, Peter Ticktin, argued that the case was unique because it involved what he described as a “smorgasbord” of defenses designed to avoid liability. He claimed Meghan and her team used vagueness, third-party voices, and group references to imply that Samantha was dishonest and opportunistic. Judges interrupted quickly. Chief Judge William Pryor pointed out that the appeal failed to challenge one of the district court’s independent grounds for dismissal: that the contested remarks were protected opinions. Under established legal standards, failing to attack that ruling meant the dismissal should stand. Ticktin admitted the problem, conceding that his team “fell into the trap” of chasing too many arguments and neglecting key points.
Related Stories
Meghan’s Counsel Defends the Win
Meghan’s attorney, Michael Kump, pressed the advantage. He argued that Samantha had abandoned most of her claims, leaving only a narrow and convoluted theory of vicarious liability tied to Bouzy’s comments. He stressed that Samantha herself once described Bouzy as an expert, undercutting the idea that Meghan should have doubted his analysis. Kump reminded the court that Meghan’s series presented Samantha’s rebuttal, further weakening claims of unfairness. Judges seemed to agree, questioning how the case could survive given the procedural and substantive flaws.
Final Thoughts
The hearing left little doubt about the direction of the case. Samantha’s lawyer struggled to answer basic legal questions and even acknowledged mistakes in framing the appeal. By failing to challenge all grounds of dismissal, he effectively conceded defeat before arguments began. The performance was embarrassing, and the court appeared poised to end the saga for good. In the end, Samantha Markle has the lawyer she deserves.
Discover more from Feminegra
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The question i have is who if funding Samantha for her to drag on these court cases? Besides imagine if Meghan sued her for defamation she’d wipe the floor with her after all that she has said and written over the years. The fact that Samantha’s own daughter doesn’t want anything to do with her says all you need to know, she’s a deadbeat relative