Meghan Markle's Legal Headache Continues

Meghan Markle's half sister has appealed a recent defeat, breathing new life into her libel lawsuit against the royal.

Samantha Markle sued the Duchess of Sussex over comments made during her Oprah Winfrey interview and Netflix documentary, but the case was dismissed in March by a district court judge in Tampa, Florida.

Now, Samantha Markle's legal team has filed an appeal, which—if successful—would overturn Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell's decision to dismiss her case.

A court filing, seen by Newsweek, said: "Notice is hereby given that the Plaintiff, Samantha M. Markle, by and through her undersigned counsel, appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the Order Granting Defendants, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, Motion to Dismiss entered by the Honorable Charlene Edwards Honeywell on March 12, 2024."

Newsweek approached Meghan Markle and Samantha Markle for comment on Tuesday.

When asked about Samantha Markle in a March 2021 interview, Meghan told Oprah: "I think it'd be very hard to tell all when you don't know me. And I mean, this is a very different situation than my dad, right? When you talk about betrayal, betrayal comes from someone that you have a relationship with. Right? I don't feel comfortable talking about people that I really don't know."

"But I grew up as an only child," she continued, "which everyone who grew up around me knows, and I wished I had siblings. I would have loved to have had siblings, so I'm so excited to be pregnant so that Archie has someone."

Samantha Markle argued that statement, among others, was defamatory, with her lawyers saying it was "disparaging, hurtful, and false" because it suggested Samantha Markle was "a stranger, a liar" and a "deceptive fame-seeking imposter with avaricious intentions."

Honeywell ruled in March that she "failed to identify any statements that could support a claim for defamation" and dismissed the case with prejudice.

During the lawsuit, Samantha Markle's team launched a broad-brush challenge to Meghan's narrative about her childhood, raising her past account of growing up on the $4.99 salad bar at Sizzler.

A central question in the case was how close the two half sisters were, though the judge ruled the question may not be answerable.

Honeywell wrote in her ruling: "What it means to be 'close'—to share a relationship with someone so intimate that you 'really know' that person—is a subject that might make good fodder for philosophical, psychological, or personal exploration.

"However, it is not capable of being definitively answered. [Samantha Markle] cannot objectively prove that she 'really knows' [Meghan] or that [Meghan] falsely felt that their relationship was not sufficiently intimate to justify use of the word 'betrayal.'

"Because this statement is an opinion not readily capable of being proven, it is protected by law from a defamation action."

"As to the defamation claims," Honeywell added, "each and every statement is non-actionable, either because it is a protected opinion, substantially true based on judicially noticed evidence, not capable of being considered defamatory, or because [Samantha Markle] is precluded from meeting the actual malice standard."

Jack Royston is Newsweek's chief royal correspondent based in London. You can find him on X, formerly Twitter, at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page.

Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.