A Delaware judge dismissed Candace Owens personally from the Macrons’ defamation suit, while a federal challenge to immigrant social-media screening proceeds without an injunction.
Two lawsuits involving public figures and contested conduct remain active after recent court developments. In Delaware, a judge narrowed Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron’s defamation case against Candace Owens and related companies. In federal court, the death of Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein has left a labor-union challenge to government review of immigrants’ social-media activity awaiting reassignment.
On Oct. 27, Delaware Superior Court Judge Sheldon Rennie dismissed Owens personally for lack of personal jurisdiction. The case continues against Candace Owens LLC and Georgetom Inc. The judge also rejected a request to dismiss the case on forum non conveniens grounds and denied a motion to strike the Macrons’ amended complaint.
The court held that French law governs the limitations issue under Delaware’s borrowing statute, but did not decide whether the claims are timely. It deferred a final ruling pending briefing on whether the applicable French period is the three-month baseline or a one-year period for discrimination-related claims.
Rennie also declined to strike allegations about statements Owens made after the allegedly defamatory publications. The court said those later statements could be circumstantial evidence of intent or actual malice. That does not establish that defamation occurred. The ruling dismisses Owens as a defendant but leaves claims against the companies for further proceedings.
A separate federal case was brought by the United Auto Workers, the Communications Workers of America and the American Federation of Teachers. The unions argue that government review of immigrants’ social-media activity violates the First Amendment. Their complaint says the review reaches roughly 55 million visa holders and has prompted some union members to delete posts, disable accounts, avoid union group chats or withdraw from union activity. These remain allegations, not findings after trial.
The government has acknowledged reading some immigrants’ posts while denying that it operates a single, “monolithic government surveillance program,” the Christian Science Monitor reported. The complaint identifies tools including Fivecast ONYX and Penlink’s Tangles, which can perform sentiment analysis, facial recognition and watch-list functions. The court has not issued a final ruling on the tools’ use or the legality of the review.
Hellerstein’s death creates uncertainty about the case’s schedule, but did not change the challenged policy. A new judge will be assigned randomly, with a case-management conference scheduled for Nov. 12. The review remains in effect because Hellerstein issued no injunction.
His Oct. 1 ruling allowed the case to proceed, recognizing organizational and associational standing for the unions. The members’ standalone claim based on a right to receive information did not survive independently, but the issue remains through the unions’ organizational standing, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Standing determines whether a plaintiff may bring a dispute before a court; it does not decide whether the challenged conduct is unconstitutional. Nor does permission to litigate amount to an order stopping the government’s review. The unions must still establish the facts and legal grounds for their First Amendment claims, and the government disputes the complaint’s characterization of its activities.
The Delaware ruling is similarly limited: it resolves certain procedural questions without deciding whether the statements were defamatory or whether the claims meet the applicable deadline. In both cases, the courts have allowed some claims to continue while leaving the central merits for later proceedings.
Lila Hayes serves as a Staff Writer for Just Right News, where she anchors the “Courts, Law, and Constitutional Order” beat. Her work is defined by a steadfast commitment to the foundational principles of the American republic and a rigorous defense of the legal frameworks that ensure national stability. As a primary voice for the outlet, she provides readers with a clear-eyed analysis of the judiciary, focusing on the importance of originalism and the preservation of the separation of powers.
Lila’s perspective was forged in the American heartland. Raised in St. Louis, Missouri, she grew up in a Hispanic household where the values of hard work, faith, and respect for the law were paramount. Her upbringing instilled in her a deep appreciation for the American Dream and the legal protections that make it possible. This Missouri background remains a cornerstone of her reporting, providing a grounded, common-sense counter-narrative to the often-insular legal circles of the coastal elite. She understands that the decisions made in high-court chambers have real-world consequences for families and small business owners across the country.
At Just Right News, Lila has become widely recognized for her signature feature series, “The Rulebook of Power.” In this ongoing project, she delves into the mechanics of the federal government, examining how administrative overreach and judicial activism can threaten the delicate balance of the Constitution. She approaches her beat with the tenacity of a veteran journalist and the precision of a legal scholar, consistently advocating for a judiciary that interprets the law as written rather than legislating from the bench. For Lila, the Constitution is not a “living” document subject to the whims of modern social trends; it is a fixed standard that ensures the government remains the servant of the people, not their master.
Now based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Lila finds herself at the very epicenter of American constitutional history. Living and working in the city where the Founders drafted the documents she defends daily provides a constant source of inspiration. The historic halls and landmarks of Philadelphia serve as a daily reminder of the high stakes involved in her reporting. Her presence in the city allows her to bridge the gap between the historical intent of the law and its contemporary application, ensuring that the legacy of the Founding Fathers remains central to the national conversation.
Throughout her career, Lila has remained dedicated to the idea that a free society requires an informed citizenry and a transparent legal system. Her reporting is more than just a collection of headlines; it is a defense of the constitutional order that has sustained the nation for over two centuries. By focusing on the “Rulebook of Power,” she ensures that her readers understand not just what is happening in the courtrooms, but why those decisions matter for the future of American liberty. Lila Hayes continues to be a vital voice for those who believe that the law should be a shield for the citizen and a constraint on the state.