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.
