FBI Director Kash Patel's $10 million defamation lawsuit against political commentator Jim Stewartson has been dismissed by a federal judge, ending the case without any ruling on whether the statements at the center of the dispute were true, false or defamatory. The decision, issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon on July 25, rested entirely on jurisdictional grounds, leaving Patel free to pursue the claims in another court with proper authority if he chooses.
The lawsuit stemmed from a series of posts published on X and Substack between June 2021 and May 2023. Patel and the Kash Foundation alleged Stewartson made numerous false accusations, including claims that Patel sought to overthrow the U.S. government, helped plan the events of Jan. 6, committed sedition, acted as a Kremlin asset and used his nonprofit organization to pay witnesses to mislead Congress. Patel argued the statements severely damaged his reputation and sought $10 million in damages.
Rather than evaluating whether any of those allegations constituted defamation, Judge Gordon concluded that the federal court in Nevada lacked personal jurisdiction over Stewartson. The ruling turned on a procedural issue that prevented the litigation from advancing to discovery or trial.
In his opinion, Gordon found that Stewartson did not have the "minimum contacts" with Nevada required under constitutional standards for the court to exercise jurisdiction. Although Patel resides in Nevada and the social media posts were accessible there, the judge determined the communications were not specifically directed at Nevada or its residents.
The court also rejected the argument that mentioning or tagging Patel on social media established sufficient legal ties to the state. Judge Gordon wrote that Stewartson's posts had "nothing to do with Nevada activities or entities," making Nevada an improper venue for the dispute. As a result, the court dismissed the case before any evidence regarding the alleged defamatory statements could be examined.
The ruling did not amount to a legal endorsement of Stewartson's statements or determine whether they were protected speech. Instead, it left the underlying allegations unresolved, addressing only where the lawsuit could properly be heard. Because the dismissal was procedural rather than substantive, Patel retains the option of filing the case in a different jurisdiction if legal requirements are met.
Although Stewartson prevailed in securing dismissal of the case, Judge Gordon also criticized aspects of his conduct during the litigation. The court concluded Stewartson appeared aware of the lawsuit and suggested he may have attempted to avoid being formally served despite repeated efforts by Patel's legal team.
"He has wasted the plaintiffs' and the court's time, and I do not commend his actions," Gordon wrote, emphasizing that his criticism was separate from the jurisdictional ruling.
Following the decision, Stewartson celebrated the outcome on X, posting that people were now free to use several derogatory descriptions of Patel without fear of legal consequences. The post circulated widely on social media, drawing renewed attention to the dispute. The court, however, did not rule that the challenged statements were lawful or protected by the First Amendment, nor did it determine whether they were defamatory. Its decision was limited solely to the issue of jurisdiction.
The dismissal comes as Patel pursues another high-profile defamation lawsuit, this time against The Atlantic, seeking $250 million in damages. In that case, Patel alleges the magazine falsely reported that he consumed alcohol while performing his duties as FBI director and that senior bureau officials questioned his leadership during the investigation into the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Patel has described those allegations as "false and obviously fabricated."
