The $250 million lawsuit filed by Nick Sandmann against The Washington Post has been dismissed by a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman, who heard oral arguments earlier this month, issued the ruling on Friday in the case that garnered national attention. Nick became embroiled in a divisive response to an encounter between him, his Covington Catholic High classmates and Native Americans on the National Mall.

The Washington Post, in a statement, said it was pleased by the dismissal.

"From our first story on this incident to our last, we sought to report fairly and accurately the facts that could be established from available evidence, the perspectives of all of the participants, and the comments of the responsible church and school officials," The Post said through a spokesperson.

The Sandmann family plans to appeal Bertelsman's ruling, according to a statement sent to The Enquirer by Nick's attorneys, Todd McMurtry and L. Lin Wood.

The January encounter led to threats lobbed at Nick, who would later appear on national television to say he felt he'd done nothing wrong.

“I believe fighting for justice for my son and family is of vital national importance," said Nick's father, Ted Sandmann, in a statement. "If what was done to Nicholas is not legally actionable, then no one is safe.”

But David Marburger, a Cleveland-based attorney who spent decades representing various media outlets, agreed with the ruling, saying he questioned the validity of Nick's claim from the outset.

"As a libel lawyer, I thought his claims were quite weak," Marburger said, "so it’s renewed confidence in the judiciary that the judge would dismiss this case ... by applying the settled law to the allegedly libelous publication. And rule in favor of the press."

Nick and his attorneys had alleged that the gist of The Washington Post's first article conveyed that Nick had assaulted or physically intimidated Nathan Phillips and engaged in racist conduct.

Bertelsman ruled such claims were "not supported by the plain language in the article, which states none of these things."

Bertelsman accepted Nick's assertion that he was only standing motionless across from Phillips, without ill intent.

But the Eastern District of Kentucky judge ruled that Phillips, who told the media he felt threatened, had a First Amendment right to express his opinion.

"He [Phillips] concluded that he was being blocked and not allowed to retreat," Bertelsman wrote. "He passed these conclusions on to The Post. They may have been erroneous, but, as discussed above, they are opinion protected by the First Amendment."

In an earlier motion, The Post wrote that Phillips "was entitled to offer his subjective point of view, and the Post had a right to report it."

Marburger said the opinion issue was at the crux of the suit.

"When we’re all looking at the same facts, we’re all free to say what we think those facts show without being fearful of a libel judgement against us," Marburger said. "And that’s what you have here."

Wood, Nick's attorney, said in a statement that "many strong appellate issues" could return the case to federal court for trial.

Both parties to the case had earlier cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision in support of their respective claims.

In his ruling, Bertelsman also cited the case, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., writing that statements that are "loose, figurative" or "rhetorical hyperbole" are protected by the First Amendment because they can't be proved true or false.

Bertelsman identified words used by The Post to describe the students as falling under the protection established in Milkovich: "swarmed," "taunting," "disrespect," aggressive" and "rambunctious," among others.

Jon Fleischaker represents the Louisville Courier-Journal and is general counsel for the Kentucky Press Association. In a previous interview with The Enquirer, the attorney discussed the protection afforded opinion in defamation cases.

It is "set law under the Constitution" that a person or publication "cannot be held ... responsible for damages for statements of opinion because opinion is something that is not provable as a matter of fact," he said.

Marburger, in a previous interview with The Enquirer, had also expounded on this protection.

He cited a 1999 Kentucky Supreme Court ruling that found "only provable false assertions of fact can provide the basis for a defamation action."

"The context is controlling, not only words but the overall expression," Marburger said. "If it screams perspective, giving a point of view, screams, you know, rhetoric, hyperbole, criticism," it isn't defamatory.

Phillips's statement to The Post – that he felt the "guy in the hat" had "blocked my way and wouldn't allow me to retreat" – did not convey objectively verifiable facts, Bertelsman ruled.

Bertelsman wrote that few principles of law are as well established as that which shields opinion from libel.

Nick's attorneys failed in proving other statements were libelous because they were not about Nick or any individual specifically, protecting them from defamation in the case, Bertelsman wrote.

As for Nick's claims that The Post reporting conveyed he had assaulted Phillips, Bertelsman wrote that interpretation could not be "reasonably read" from the articles. Phillips initially said the students chanted "build that wall," despite a lack of such chants appearing on video. But the claim isn't libelous even if false, Bertelsman wrote, because precedent protects political party membership.

Taken together, The Post reporting did not subject Nick to disgrace or ridicule when the reporting was stripped of "innuendoes and explanations," Bertelsman wrote.

But Nick's lawsuit, Bertelsman added, employed "precisely the type of explanation or innuendo that cannot enlarge or add to the sense or affect of the words charged to be libelous."

Bertelsman also ruled it irrelevant to the defamation case that "Sandmann was scorned on social media."

Nick has also sued CNN and NBC. Before Friday's dismissal, he was seeking more than three-quarters of $1 billion against the three media companies.

The cases against CNN and NBC remain pending as of Friday afternoon.

More:Nick Sandmann of CovCath may face challenges in proving defamation, experts say

Editorial:Can we learn from CovCath incident in D.C.? We must

SUPPORT JOURNALISM: Subscribe today to get access to all of our coverage