A New York federal judge has dismissed former U.S. Representative Devin Nunes’ defamation lawsuit against NBCUniversal, ruling that the media company did not act with actual malice when reporting on Nunes' alleged failure to provide the FBI with a package from a suspected Russian agent. The court also granted NBCUniversal’s motion for sanctions, ordering Nunes to pay litigation costs due to his failure to preserve records from his time in Congress.

The order, issued Friday by U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel, grants summary judgment in favor of NBCUniversal Media LLC, ending the lawsuit filed by Nunes — now the CEO of Trump Media & Technology Group.

Background: Claims Stemming From Maddow’s 2021 Broadcast

The case centered around a March 2021 episode of “The Rachel Maddow Show,” in which Maddow reported that Nunes received a package from Andrii Derkach, a Ukrainian lawmaker with ties to Russian intelligence, and that Nunes had “refused” to hand it over to the FBI. Nunes claimed that the statement was false and defamatory, arguing that he gave the package to federal authorities the same day it was received.

NBCUniversal defended the segment by noting it relied on a July 23, 2020, Politico article that quoted a source familiar with the matter saying that the package “was not turned over to the FBI.” While the Maddow segment didn’t cite the Politico article directly, the network maintained it formed the basis for the reporting and did not amount to actual malice — a critical standard in defamation cases involving public figures.

The Ruling: No Malice, No Defamation

Judge Castel found that Nunes failed to prove “actual malice” — the legal threshold required for a public figure to prevail in a defamation suit, as established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). The judge concluded that Nunes offered no clear and convincing evidence that NBCUniversal either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth.

“Nunes is unable to show, through clear and convincing evidence, that defendant either had actual knowledge of the falsity of the statement or recklessly disregarded the truth of the statement,” Judge Castel wrote.

The judge emphasized that reliance on a single source — particularly a reputable one like Politico — does not constitute malice under prevailing legal standards. Maddow and the show’s executive producer, Cory Gnazzo, both testified that they believed the Politico article was reliable, and that its authors were respected.

Interpretation of “Refusal” and Contextual Justification

Nunes argued that Maddow distorted the Politico article by using the word “refused” — a term he said implied intentional obstruction. But the judge found that this wording was supported by dictionary definitions and the overall context of the article.

The statement that the information “had not been turned over” was “tantamount to a ‘refusal,’” Castel stated, noting that the use of the word did not exceed the bounds of fair interpretation.

Judge Castel also highlighted that Maddow and Gnazzo believed Nunes had not publicly disputed the Politico article, nor had he sued its authors, which bolstered the defense’s credibility.

Bias Claims Rejected

Nunes further claimed Maddow harbored personal political bias, citing her repeated criticisms of him across 36 episodes from 2017 to 2020. However, the court said political differences alone do not demonstrate actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth.

“That is also not enough to show ‘The Rachel Maddow Show’ acted with a reckless disregard of the truth,” Castel wrote.

Sanctions: Failure to Preserve Congressional Records

In a separate decision within the same order, Judge Castel granted NBCUniversal’s request for sanctions after finding that Nunes failed to preserve documents from his congressional office relevant to the case. Nunes had filed the lawsuit five months before leaving Congress, yet no evidence suggested he took steps to preserve internal communications related to the litigation.

Though Nunes’ former communications director claimed he had a “standing instruction” to retain such records, the House Intelligence Committee said it received no such request. As a result, the court ordered Nunes to reimburse NBCUniversal for costs associated with discovery efforts to obtain those materials.

Case History: A Long Road to Dismissal

Nunes originally filed the lawsuit in Texas federal court in 2021, accusing NBCUniversal of intentionally spreading falsehoods that painted him as withholding critical election interference information from the House Intelligence Committee, where he served at the time.

The suit was transferred to the Southern District of New York in 2022, and NBCUniversal moved to dismiss all claims. Judge Castel dismissed two out of three challenged statements, allowing one claim — involving Maddow’s FBI remark — to proceed.

In November 2023, a magistrate judge granted Nunes limited discovery access to Maddow’s personal email, text, and messaging apps, restricted to communications relevant to the March 2021 segment.

Legal Teams

• Devin Nunes was represented by:

  • Anthony C. Carlini Jr. (Handel & Carlini LLP)

  • Jason Caldwell Greaves and Jesse R. Binnall (Binnall Law Group)

  • Madhu Suseela Sekharan (Madhu Sekaran J.D., MBA, Attorney at Law)

  • Steven S. Biss (Law Office of Steven S. Biss)

• NBCUniversal Media LLC was represented by:

  • Laura Lee Prather and Michael Joseph Lambert (Haynes and Boone LLP)

  • Alexandra Settelmayer, Elizabeth A. McNamara, and Jeremy Adam Chase (Davis Wright Tremaine LLP)

As of Monday, representatives for both parties had not responded to requests for comment.

Case Information

• Case Name: Nunes v. NBCUniversal Media LLC

• Case Number: 1:22-cv-01633

• Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York