Kash Patel Awarded $100K Compensatory + $100K Punitive Damages Default Judgment in Libel Suit Against Substacker Jim Stewartson (Filed in 2023)

Back in June 2023, now-FBI-Director Kash Patel sued Jim Stewartson for libel, alleging that Stewartson had falsely claimed that Patel "attempted to overthrow the government," "planned 1/6," was "guilty of sedition," was a "Kremlin asset," and paid people to "lie to congress"; some of the allegations were also about Patel's Kash Foundation. Stewartson didn't appear to defend himself, so eventually, in March 2025, Patel moved for default judgment.Yesterday, Judge Andrew Gordon (D. Nev.) granted the motion:

As a result of the entry of default [triggered by Stewartson's failure to defend himself], "the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, [are] taken as true." Stewartson's statements are defamatory as to Kashyap Patel. And the complaint alleges that at least one of these statements was impliedly directed at the Kash Foundation, Inc. and "directly and proximately caused the Kash Foundation significant damages …." Thus, liability is established.

The plaintiffs' motion offers scant evidence of harm or damages to either plaintiff. Even if damages are presumed, there must be some evidence to support a monetary award. The plaintiffs' expert report offers only conclusory statements about reputational damage and lost Foundation donors, with almost no reference to specific instances to support those. For example, the reports states that Mr. Patel's "image has been deeply hurt by the defamation accusing him of working against the government, corruption, and crime. Apart from the business already lost, this impacts future opportunities and relationships." But the report offers no examples of "business already lost" and how Mr. Patel's image was hurt by the defamatory statements themselves, as opposed to the myriad non-defamatory attacks Mr. Patel has suffered as a result of being a public figure.

To the contrary, after the defamatory statements, Mr. Patel was confirmed by the United States Senate as Director of the F.B.I. Clearly his reputation was not significantly sullied by the defamatory statements. Thus, minimal, if any, reputational rehabilitation damages are needed.

Nevertheless, Stewartson's statements were defamatory and caused presumed damages. Falsely stating as fact that a public figure "attempted to overthrow the government," planned the January 6 insurrection, was a "Kremlin asset," and paid people to "lie to [C]ongress" inflicts real injuries, personally and professionally. I award Mr. Patel $100,000 in compensatory damages.

Likewise, there is almost no concrete evidence of harm or damages suffered by the Foundation. All of the defamatory statements were directed at Mr. Patel individually. The Foundation contends it was harmed "by implication." The plaintiffs' expert states that Mr. Patel's "reputational damage has affected the ability of Kash Foundation to continue carrying out its social impact and affected donor and client relationships." But there is only proffer of a possible harm to the Foundation: according to Andrew Ollis (whose affiliation with the Foundation is not described) "[a]t [l]east 7 donors, with a total donation/gift of $25,000+ have stopped giving since the incident, with the defamation being a highly probable cause of the same because the narrative directly contradicts the benevolence of donating to a charitable cause." There is no indication which "incident" (i.e., which defamatory statement) is referenced and why that statement (or the series of statements) is "a highly probable cause" of the lost donations, as opposed to other reasons. Nor does the report explain why those seven donors account for "$25,000+" in lost donations when the average donation to the Foundation is $47.

Nevertheless, I will accept the $25,000 figure as a reasonable estimate of the harm to the Foundation, given that there is no other evidence of any affected donor or relationship or any impact on the Foundation's ability to carry out its mission. I award the Foundation $25,000 in compensatory damages.

The plaintiffs also request an award of punitive damages. Such an award is appropriate here, in part to deter Stewartson and others from engaging in defamation. Factual criticism of, and opinions about, public figures are protected speech and must be tolerated. This nation was founded on "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

But defamatory falsehoods made with actual malice are not protected, even if directed at public officials. The complaint and the motion adequately demonstrate Stewartson acted with malice.

I consider "three guideposts" when evaluating punitive damages: "(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases." … Here, the harm was economic, the plaintiffs were not financially vulnerable, and the conduct involved repeated defamatory statements infused with malice. Considering these factors, I award Mr. Patel $100,000 in punitive damages and the Foundation $25,000 in punitive damages.