Nina Jankowicz, once tagged to lead a controversial Disinformation Governance Board under the Biden administration, has seen her defamation lawsuit against Fox News dismissed. This lawsuit stems from Fox’s reporting on the upheaval around the Disinformation Governance Board, which faced severe criticism before its dissolution.
In a ruling from September 12, a three-judge panel from the Third Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision to dismiss Jankowicz’s case in July 2024. According to the ruling, the statements made by Fox were deemed not actionable, falling into categories such as opinion or being substantially true. Jankowicz argued that Fox’s comments were aimed at her personally, noting that they displayed her image while discussing the disbanded board. The judges countered this by stating, “These allegations are not enough to transform criticism of the Board into statements of and concerning Jankowicz.”
Fox News celebrated the decision, asserting it was a victory for the First Amendment. “This was a politically motivated lawsuit aimed at silencing free speech,” a Fox spokesperson noted, supporting the court’s stance.
Jankowicz, however, remains undeterred. She described her frustration online, expressing her belief that the justice system often favors offenders over victims. In her words, “It is a justice system that, in this crucial moment, doesn’t seem capable of reconciling decades-old precedent with the realities of violent political rhetoric in the digital age.” Her comments reflect a deep concern about the implications for public figures facing criticism in an era characterized by rampant misinformation.
She maintained that the criticism she received created an entirely “fake controversy,” which led to her resignation from the position she had been appointed to. Jankowicz continues to argue that the judges mischaracterized public criticisms as mere opinion. Despite this setback, she has rebranded her GoFundMe, naming it the “Nina Jankowicz Legal Defense Fund,” suggesting she still seeks financial support for ongoing legal battles.
The district court’s dismissal of most of her claims highlighted a critical aspect of free speech law. Specifically, it serialized the quantity of statements made against Jankowicz, with only one out of thirty-seven being potentially actionable. Chief Judge Colm Connolly pointed out that statements, which included a claim by Sean Hannity regarding the board’s intent, were factual and not false, reinforcing the court’s upholding of free expression rights.
As the legal disputes unfold, Jankowicz’s situation illustrates the fraught intersection of politics, media, and personal accountability. This case, centered around a government initiative met with public skepticism, raises broader questions about the limits of defamation in the age of rampant digital discourse.
"*" indicates required fields
