A verified complaint filed in NY Supreme Court reframes a provocative claim about the President and First Lady’s marriage into a narrow legal question: is describing it as a “sham marriage… trophy marriage, hardly any marriage at all” actionable defamation, or protected opinion? 

The filing also alleges she maintains a New York City residence at Trump Tower, while spending time in Washington, D.C. and having Florida ties.

The filing identifies the statement as originating from an Instagram interview and argues it is a “plain statement of non-actionable opinion,” pulled from broader context. 

That classification is dispositive.

Under New York Civil Rights Law §70-a and §76-a, if a defamation claim lacks “substantial basis in fact and law,” the target may recover attorney’s fees, compensatory damages, and potentially punitive damages. 

The complaint therefore seeks declaratory relief that the challenged statements are not actionable because they constitute opinion rather than provable fact. 

The dispute before the court is not about the substance of the marriage itself.

It is about where New York draws the constitutional boundary between harsh political rhetoric and actionable libel.