The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Bill Maher's Saying Trump "Might Be" "Fucking" Republican Activist Laura Loomer Might Be Defamation of Loomer
A judge lets Loomer's defamation claim against Maher and HBO go forward.
An excerpt from today's decision in Loomer v. Maher, by Judge James Moody (M.D. Fla.):
[According to] the Complaint[,] Plaintiff Laura Loomer is a "well-known conservative investigative journalist." Loomer is also a "conservative, Republican, Jewish female activist." In the past, Loomer has worked for Canadian news publisher The Rebel Media as well as Project Veritas. Loomer also has her own media company called Illoominate Media, which operates in this circuit. Loomer was a Republican candidate for Florida's 11th congressional district in 2022. Defendant Bill Maher is the host of "Real Time with Bill Maher," a weekly hour-long television program that airs on Defendant Home Box Office, Inc.'s network ("HBO")….
[T]he Complaint alleges that on a September 13, 2024, episode of Maher's show "Real Time," which HBO broadcasted nationally and internationally, Maher made and published the following false, malicious, and defamatory statement of and concerning Loomer:
I think maybe Laura Loomer's in an arranged relationship to affect the election because she's very close to Trump. She's 31, looks like his type. We did an editorial here a few years ago…it was basically, who's Trump fucking? Because I said, you know, it's not nobody. He's been a dog for too long, and it's not Melania. I think we may have our answer this week. I think it might be Laura Loomer.
According to the Complaint: "In this statement, Defendant Maher makes the false statement that Ms. Loomer is in a sexual relationship with Donald Trump, who is a married man." Thus, Defendant Maher "falsely and maliciously accused Ms. Loomer of having committed adultery with Donald Trump."
The Complaint continues to allege that Maher's statements were "plainly false [because] Ms. Loomer has never engaged in sexual relations with President Donald Trump." And that there is not a "shred of credible reporting or evidence suggesting otherwise." Loomer claims that Defendant Maher had no basis in fact to make this statement. He simply fabricated it for attention, notoriety, "clicks," and profit for himself and Defendant HBO, his employer….
At this pleading stage, the Complaint adequately alleges that Maher's statements were actionable statements of facts concerning Loomer. Indeed, and as Loomer argues in her filings, Maher cannot, at this stage, escape liability because he couches his statements as a joke, an opinion, or as "conjecture, hypothesis, or speculation" because the statements do not appear that way on their face.
Loomer alleges that Maher stated as a fact that Loomer "might" be "fucking" President Trump, a married man, which she claims was and is false and which is capable of being proven false. Maher's use of the term "might" does not automatically render Maher's statements protected opinion or conjecture. See McQueen v. Baskin (Fla. App. 2023) (stating: "Simply couching such statements in terms of opinion does not dispel these implications; and the statement, 'In my opinion Jones is a liar,' can cause as much damage to reputation as the statement, 'Jones is a liar.'") (citing Lipsig v. Ramlawi (Fla. App. 2000) ("However, a speaker cannot invoke a 'pure opinion' defense, if the facts underlying the opinion are false or inaccurately presented."))….
While Defendants may view Maher's statements as "speculative joking," he made them during a non-comedic and serious panel discussion with conservative pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson and former U.S. Senator Al Franken that involved topics such as alleged police brutality. Also, and, as Loomer points out, when Maher told the purported "joke" about Loomer, "it drew more groans from the audience than sparse laughter." So Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied to the extent the motion argues that the subject statements were not about facts.
Defendants next argue that Loomer did not plead malice, which is required because Loomer is a public figure. While the Court agrees with Defendants that Loomer must plead malice—even with respect to her defamation per se claims—the Court disagrees that malice is not adequately pled in the Complaint. Loomer alleges that: "These false and misleading statements were broadcasted with actual malice, as Defendants knew that they were false and misleading, and/or at a minimum acted and published with a reckless disregard for the truth."
The Complaint further alleges that there is not a "shred of credible reporting or evidence suggesting otherwise" and that "Defendant Maher had no basis in fact to make this statement. He simply fabricated it for attention, notoriety, "clicks," and profit for himself and Defendant HBO, his employer." Assuming the truth of these allegations, which the Court must do at this stage, Maher was knowingly reckless because he fabricated what he said about Loomer "fucking" President Trump.
Also, the Complaint avers that Defendants refused to retract what they said about Loomer after being placed on notice that the statements were false and Maher, again acting with malice, chose to target Loomer in a subsequent September 20, 2024, episode of "Real Time," with a segment titled "24 Things You Don't Know About Laura Loomer" where he continued to make alleged false and disparaging statements about Loomer.
Tellingly, Defendants argue facts that are not alleged in the Complaint to prove their point that Maher was not reckless, a red herring on a motion to dismiss. For example, Defendants contend that: "in light of Ms. Loomer's own statements about her affection for Trump, repeated appearances the two made together in the days leading up to the September 13, 2024 episode, and rumors about their relationship, Mr. Maher had ample reason to believe they 'may' be sleeping together." The Court cannot consider these purported facts at this stage. Accordingly, Defendants' argument that malice is not sufficiently pled is denied….
Larry Klayman (Klayman Law Group P.A.) represents Loomer.
