No, Cruz cannot sue the Enquirer because the Enquirer merely reported the existence of an allegation or rumor - it did not report the story itself. Cruz is a public figure and such speculation is not actionable.
Trump gets a two-fer with his planting of this flaming bag of doo-doo by using it also as "proof" that libel laws need to be changed.
However, if Cruz can prove Trump to be the source of a false and intentionally harmful action, Cruz can try to sue Trump for slander.
My direction question to Jim Robinson's post#2 remains. Who does Jim Robinson think Cruz should sue?
Baloney, the women could sue, But they won’t.
I think that is an open question. By your test, "just spreading rumors" becomes an absolute defense.
Reporting a rumor does not require investigating its truth | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
The trial court agreed, as did the appellate court, which relied on the Supreme Court's 1968 ruling in St. Amant v. Thompson that the level of fault a plaintiff like Little must prove is shown only if the reporter "in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication."
Stop blaming Trump for everything. Good God - Ted has you people so hoodwinked, it isn’t even funny. One of the women in this story is Katrina - who works for Trump. Do you think he would throw her under the bus like this? Where’s your sound judgment? I guess you don’t have any - you are suc a fool and a tool.
Bingo! I don't think anyone wants to hear this, but it is true. So far, there is nothing that Cruz CAN sue over.
Also flying beneath the radar is the fact that National Enquirer CEO David Pecker (yep, that's his name) is a friend of Donald Trump, and that National Enquirer ran vicious hit pieces on Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina at key points in the current campaign. Strangely, National Enquirer has been friendly to Trump in spite of his own checkered personal life. Motive?