Judge Dismisses Kash Patel’s $10 Million Defamation Suit Over Social Media Posts

A U.S. federal judge has dismissed FBI Director Kash Patel’s defamation lawsuit against blogger and podcaster Jim Stewartson, ruling that the Nevada court lacked personal jurisdiction over the California-based defendant.

The decision vacates an earlier default judgment that had awarded Kash Patel and his charitable foundation $250,000 after Jim Stewartson failed to respond to the lawsuit. The ruling shifts the focus from the underlying defamation allegations to a procedural legal issue: whether the case could properly be heard in Nevada.

The dispute, which began in 2023 over a series of social media posts, has drawn widespread attention due to the politically charged language involved and the broader questions it raises about online speech, jurisdiction and defamation law.

Court Rules Nevada Lacked Authority

In his order, Chief U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon concluded that Stewartson’s online activity did not establish sufficient legal ties to Nevada to justify the federal court hearing the case.

Although Kash Patel resides in Nevada, the judge found that Jim Stewartson’s posts on social media and Substack were not specifically directed toward a Nevada audience. Simply mentioning or tagging Kash Patel in online posts, the court held, did not create the type of connection required for personal jurisdiction.

The ruling effectively nullified the earlier default judgment entered in August 2025 after Jim Stewartson failed to participate in the legal proceedings.

Judge Gordon’s decision did not determine whether the statements made about Patel were true or false. Instead, it focused solely on whether Nevada was the appropriate legal venue for the lawsuit.

Background of the Defamation Case

Kash Patel originally filed the lawsuit in June 2023, alleging that Jim Stewartson published defamatory statements accusing him of attempting to overthrow the U.S. government, participating in efforts surrounding the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, and committing acts of sedition.

The complaint also challenged several insulting characterizations used in Stewartson’s online commentary.

Because Stewartson did not initially respond to the lawsuit, the court entered a default judgment awarding Patel and the Kash Foundation monetary damages.

Stewartson later sought to overturn that judgment, arguing he had not been properly served and that he lacked meaningful connections to Nevada.

The court ultimately agreed with the jurisdiction argument, leading to Tuesday’s dismissal.

Social Media Reaction After the Ruling

Following the decision, Stewartson publicly celebrated the outcome on social media, reposting several of the same insults that had been referenced in the original lawsuit.

One of those remarks, including a phrase describing Patel with a derogatory insult, was referenced in a footnote within the court’s written order because it formed part of the factual record presented during the litigation.

Stewartson also suggested that the dismissal represented a victory for free expression, although legal experts note that the ruling addressed jurisdiction rather than establishing any broader legal protection for similar statements.

The court did not rule that the comments were non-defamatory or protected speech; it ruled only that Nevada was not the proper forum for the dispute.

Separate Defamation Lawsuit Continues

The dismissal comes as Kash Patel remains involved in another high-profile legal battle.

Earlier this year, he filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic and one of its journalists over an article that discussed allegations regarding his conduct and reported alcohol use while serving as FBI director.

The publication has asked the court to dismiss that lawsuit, arguing that the reporting is protected under the First Amendment and that the complaint lacks legal merit.

That case remains pending.

Legal Experts Highlight Jurisdiction Issue

The latest ruling illustrates a recurring issue in internet-era defamation cases: determining where lawsuits involving online speech can be filed.

While social media posts can be viewed nationwide, U.S. courts generally require plaintiffs to demonstrate that a defendant intentionally directed allegedly harmful conduct toward the forum state before exercising personal jurisdiction.

Legal scholars say courts have increasingly scrutinized attempts to file online defamation suits in jurisdictions with limited connections to the defendant, particularly when the disputed content was published to a national audience rather than targeting a specific state.

The decision does not prevent Patel from pursuing legal remedies elsewhere if another court determines it has jurisdiction over the claims.

For now, however, the Nevada federal court has closed the case, leaving the earlier damages award void and underscoring the