Supreme Court To Nick Sandmann: ‘Lol, No’ To Hearing His Omnibus Defamation Lawsuit Against News Orgs

Remember Nick Sandmann? He was the dude who became something of a Rorschach Test for how much your political beliefs (in any direction) influence your views of a short video, when EVERYONE HAD OPINIONS on his MAGA-hat wearing encounter with a Native American demonstrator, Nathan Phillips. Also, everyone magically became experts in reading body language and facial expressions.

Anyway, it turned out that the short video left out much of the context of the encounter, and many of those opinions looked a bit silly within days (again, in any political direction). But, for some reason, Sandmann was convinced that he could sue anyone who offered an eventually-determined-to-be-silly opinion for defamation, partly because of the advice of his terrible, terrible lawyers Lin Wood and Todd McMurtry.

He sued a bunch of news orgs, and none of the cases showed anything that could even remotely be seen as defamatory. After some back and forth, much of the case zeroed in on one major thing. Phillips had spoken to the media about his impressions of the encounter, which were clearly his opinion from his vantage point. But Sandmann insisted that because there were some minor factual errors in that description, it could be deemed as defamatory. But, that’s not how it works.

Eventually, CNN decided to settle, leading to wild speculation that CNN must have paid him hundreds of millions of dollars. This was based solely on the ridiculous amounts he had asked for in the lawsuits themselves. However, most people recognized the nature of the settlement, given where the case was meant that it was almost certainly a “nuisance fee,” to make the case go away. That is, less than it would have cost to have continued to fight the case and get it dismissed.

This was more or less confirmed when Sandmann’s not-good-actually-terrible lawyer Lin Wood lost his shit when a CNN on-air contributor randomly speculated on Twitter that she’d “guess” Sandmann got $25k, and Wood claimed that was a breach of CNN’s confidentiality agreement. So, one, that confirmed rather than the many, many millions MAGA folks were insisting Sandmann got, Wood effectively confirmed it was $25k. If it was a wrong number, Wood likely wouldn’t have been claiming it violated an agreement. But, also, the fact that it was just a guess (apparently a good one) meant that, even if right, it wouldn’t violate the agreement.

The Washington Post and NBC also eventually (stupidly) decided it was worth nuisance fees and settled. They shouldn’t have. Beyond marking themselves as easy marks in defamation lawsuits (leading to a bunch of MAGA lawsuits directed at CNN), it allowed this ridiculous story to live on.

Of course, what happened then was that a judge rightly dismissed all the other lawsuits against all the other media defendants (which had all been consolidated into a single case). There was no defamation at all. The companies that paid nuisance fees to settle could have paid a bit more and actually won their cases.

Sandmann appealed. Last year, the 6th Circuit easily upheld the lower court ruling. Again, opinion ain’t defamation. This is defamation 101 stuff:

Phillips’s statements are opinion, not fact. In making this finding, we are not engaging in speculation or reading improper inferences into Phillips’s statements, as the dissent suggests. Rather, we are engaging in the task required of us: a legal interpretation of Phillips’s statements in their context within the News Organizations’ articles. The statements’ opinion-versus-fact status is “not a question for the jury.” Cromity, 494 S.W.3d at 504.

Because the statements are opinion, they are protected by both the Constitution and Kentucky law, and they are nonactionable. The district court did not err in so concluding.

Sandmann requested the Supreme Court hear his appeal. He argued that “conveying observed sensory impressions in factual, descriptive terms” should not be considered opinion, but could be deemed as factual. Basically, if you are describing how you viewed a scenario (i.e., your opinion of it), but use “factual” language, then (according to the petition), it should be possible to call it defamatory.

This reminds me of a lesson a smart 1st Amendment lawyer told me years back. Saying “in my opinion” and then stating a fact doesn’t make it an opinion, nor does saying “as a matter of fact” and then stating an opinion make what you said factual. How you frame it doesn’t matter for defamation. It just matters whether or not you made a false statement of fact that defamed someone. Giving your opinion of a situation is not that.

Last week, the Supreme Court denied cert (without comment). Sandmann’s lawyer (Sandmann fired Lin Wood midway through all this but kept on Todd McMurtry) is claiming this is a travesty of justice, which is just as laughable as his legal arguments in the case:

Sandmann attorney Todd McMurtry told Law&Crime that the denial left him profoundly disappointed.

“In response to the Supreme Court’s recent decision not to hear the defamation case of Nick Sandmann, I can only express profound disappointment. This outcome denies Nick justice and misses an opportunity to set important precedents for protecting individual rights against defamation by mainstream media,” he said. “The Supreme Court’s refusal to address the critical issues presented by our case illustrates the growing challenges individuals face in the public sphere. Such challenges include unchecked defamation, significantly threatening individuals’ reputational integrity and personal dignity. It touches upon the very essence of our democratic values and the right of every American to seek redress when those values are compromised.”

The lawyer added that he’s writing a book called “Dismissed” which will explore “challenges faced by individuals in seeking justice against powerful media entities,” as in Sandmann’s case. He maintains there are “systemic issues” that make defamation actions like these subject to “marginalization.”

“As we reflect on the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision, let us keep sight of the broader conversation about justice, accountability, and the protection of individual rights,” McMurtry concluded. “We must continue this conversation with urgency and commitment for Nick and all Americans who deserve a legal system that serves justice equitably.”

Get off your high horse, McMurtry. You filed a series of shitty SLAPP suits over non-defamatory speech. You were lucky to get out of it with a few nuisance-fee settlement deals. If you actually had a legitimate case it wouldn’t have been rejected at all three levels. The subtitle of your book should be “how I wasted everyone’s time and money just to get dismissed.”

The only “systemic” issue is the one going the other way: the one that enables people to file sketchy SLAPP suits over nothing, and waste years of everyone’s time.

This is why we continue to need a strong federal anti-SLAPP law and strong anti-SLAPP laws in every state, to get these kinds of suits dismissed much faster, and with legal fees on the line.