Recent settlements and appellate denials reinforce the judiciary’s commitment to the actual malice standard in multi-billion dollar defamation suits.
The landscape of high-stakes defamation litigation underwent a significant shift this month as the federal judiciary signaled a continued adherence to traditional First Amendment protections. The dismissal with prejudice of Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.3 billion lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani, following a confidential settlement on September 27, 2025, marks the end of one of the most prominent legal challenges arising from the 2020 election cycle. While the terms remain undisclosed, the procedural conclusion reflects a broader trend of courts steering these disputes toward established doctrinal resolutions rather than constitutional innovations.
In the D.C. federal court, Judge Carl Nichols continues to oversee a separate $1.3 billion suit against Sidney Powell. By rejecting Powell’s repeated attempts to dismiss the case and tossing her countersuit for alleged abuse of process, the court has affirmed that the merits of these claims must be tested against the “actual malice” standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan. This standard, which requires a public figure to prove that a defendant acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, remains the bedrock of American defamation law. The court’s refusal to allow Powell’s countersuit to proceed highlights a judicial skepticism toward claims that the legal process itself is being weaponized when plaintiffs follow established filing procedures.
The Supreme Court has consistently declined to intervene in these matters, reinforcing the stability of current precedent. In March 2026, the Court denied certiorari in a Fulton County, Pennsylvania case involving alleged contract breaches by Dominion, leaving lower-court dismissals intact. This follows a pattern established in late 2024, when the Court rejected two separate appeals that sought to litigate the reliability of voting software. By refusing these petitions, the Justices have effectively signaled that the federal courts are not the appropriate venue for broad, unsubstantiated challenges to election infrastructure that lack a firm basis in statutory or constitutional law.
Furthermore, the judiciary has utilized its power to sanction to deter what it deems frivolous litigation. The Supreme Court’s 2023 refusal to review a $187,000 penalty against two lawyers for Dominion-related claims serves as a warning regarding the duty of candor to the court. While disciplinary proceedings against figures like Giuliani and Powell remain pending, the underlying message from the bench is one of procedural rigor. The courts are prioritizing the Rule of Law over political narrative, ensuring that the separation of powers protects the integrity of the judicial process from being used as a tool for extra-legal grievances. This is particularly relevant as the Court has previously rebuffed appeals from figures like Mike Lindell, leaving lower-court rulings in place that allow defamation cases to proceed.
As these cases move toward finality, the doctrinal clarity provided by the federal courts offers a stabilizing force. Rather than expanding the liability of speakers or narrowing the protections of the press, the judiciary has maintained a fixed standard. This approach protects American liberty by ensuring that the law is interpreted as written, providing a predictable framework for both the protection of reputation and the preservation of robust public debate. Even as the executive branch faces internal turmoil—highlighted by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s recent removal of Army officers and the subsequent resignation of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll—the judicial branch appears intent on maintaining a consistent constitutional order.
The persistence of these cases in the lower courts, despite the high-profile settlement of the Giuliani matter, suggests that the legal system is functioning as the Founders intended: as a deliberative body that requires evidence over rhetoric. By keeping the actual malice standard intact, the courts ensure that the First Amendment remains a robust shield for all citizens, regardless of the prevailing political winds. The judiciary’s refusal to entertain election-machine challenges in October 2024 and March 2026 further cements the principle that the courtroom is a place for specific, provable injury rather than generalized grievances against the mechanics of democracy.
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.