Federal appeals judges on Tuesday signaled skepticism about Samantha Markle’s bid to revive a libel lawsuit against her half sister, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, pressing the plaintiff’s lawyer on whether the appeal meaningfully challenged the reasons a district judge dismissed the case.
The three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Jacksonville questioned whether Samantha Markle’s filing addressed the bases for U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell’s earlier dismissal, comments that legal observers said amount to a notable hurdle for the 60-year-old plaintiff. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge William Pryor told Samantha Markle’s attorney that the appellant must “knock down in [her] opening brief every basis for the district court’s ruling,” adding, “it seems to me that everything you argue about is beside the point.”
Samantha Markle sued Meghan, now 44, in federal court in Florida after statements the duchess made during a 2021 interview with Oprah Winfrey. Samantha alleged those remarks were “demonstrably false and malicious” and harmed her reputation. After Judge Honeywell dismissed the suit — finding much of Meghan’s discussion to be opinion and not actionable as defamation — Samantha appealed. Her lawyers urged the appeals court that the “cumulative effect” of Meghan’s comments constituted defamation by implication and caused her humiliation, threats and harm in her community.
"The whole purpose was to destroy Samantha Markle," attorney Peter Ticktin told the panel, arguing that Meghan’s use of terms such as “disinformation” and “racist troll” contributed to the alleged harm. Ticktin said the remarks led to death threats and to Samantha being “hated in the community.” The 11th Circuit judges probed whether that theory sufficiently addressed the district court’s legal reasoning.
Meghan’s legal team has previously characterized the case as lacking merit. In filings after Samantha’s late-2022 suit, Meghan’s lawyers said they would "give it the minimum attention necessary, which is all it deserves." Michael Kump, a lawyer for Meghan, has said that the duchess’s statements are protected opinion under the First Amendment and that Samantha had no viable defamation claim.
The dispute dates to the March 2021 interview with Winfrey, in which the Duke and Duchess of Sussex discussed family dynamics and aspects of Meghan’s relationship with members of her birth family. Samantha’s filings have alleged that Meghan and others accused her and their father, Thomas Markle Sr., of selling stories to British tabloids and of other conduct that Samantha says damaged her reputation.
Judge Honeywell, in her dismissal, wrote that a reasonable listener would view much of the duchess’s account as subjective opinion about her childhood and family relationships, and therefore not capable of being proved false. Following that ruling, Samantha refiled or pursued appeals in 2023 and again brought the matter to the 11th Circuit panel on Tuesday. No decision was issued at the hearing.
Thomas Markle Sr., the couple’s estranged father, has previously said he would be willing to testify in Samantha’s favor; he has lived abroad this year. The litigation has unfolded against a broader, public dispute between Meghan and some members of her birth family that has been widely covered in U.S. and British media.
The appeals court’s questioning suggests Samantha faces an uphill path. Appeals courts generally review whether the lower court correctly applied the law and do not retry factual disputes. The panel’s focus on whether the opening brief addressed all grounds for the district court’s dismissal underscores the procedural challenge confronting the plaintiff. A formal ruling could come weeks or months after the hearing, depending on the court’s schedule and whether the judges order additional briefing or record material.
Until the 11th Circuit issues a decision, the district court’s dismissal remains in place. Representatives for Meghan did not immediately respond to requests for comment after the hearing.