“Robert Trump is very pleased with the New York Supreme Court injunction against Mary Trump and Simon & Schuster,” said Charles Harder, an attorney for Robert Trump, in a statement.
By calling the actions of Mary Trump and Simon & Schuster “reprehensible,” Harder added that he hoped to “vigorously litigate this case.”
“In the absence of corrective measures to immediately stop his heinous conduct, we will continue this case to the end,” said Harder.
Ted Boutrous, a renowned First Amendment attorney representing Mary Trump and who has also represented CNN in matters in the past, said the order “outrightly violates the First Amendment.”
“We will immediately appeal,” Boutrous said. “This book, which addresses issues of great public interest and importance about a practicing president in the election year, should not be suppressed for even a day.”
Adam Rothberg, a spokesman for Simon & Schuster, said in a statement that the company was “disappointed” in the court’s decision.
“We plan to immediately appeal this decision to the Appeals Division, and hope to prevail in this case based on well-established precedents regarding the prior restriction,” said Rothberg.
Simon & Schuster describes Mary Trump’s book, “Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the Most Dangerous Man in the World,” as a “revealing and authoritative portrait of Donald J. Trump and the toxic family that did it.”
The book, the publisher says, will shed “a bright light on his family’s dark history to explain how his uncle became the man who now threatens the health, economic security and social fabric of the world.”
After that case was dismissed, Robert Trump brought his case to the New York State Supreme Court.
Robert Trump has argued that, as part of litigation related to Fred Trump’s will, an agreement was reached that included a confidentiality provision. That provision, argued Robert Trump, was agreed by all parties, including Mary Trump.
But a federal judge denied the Justice Department motion, writing in its decision that Bolton’s book had already been widely distributed and that the court “would not order the seizure and destruction of a political memory at the national level.”
.
