No Contempt Sanctions for Laura Loomer's Comments About CAIR, Magistrate Judge Recommends

Loomer had entered into a non-disparagement agreement to settle an earlier case, and the agreement had been adopted as a court order, but it also had an exception for statements responding to CAIR's statements about her.

From yesterday's Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart in Illoominate Media, Inc. & Laura Loomer v. CAIR Florida, Inc. & CAIR Found.:

CAIR is a self-described civil rights and advocacy organization whose mission is to "enhance understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims." Plaintiff Laura Loomer is a self-described journalist who regularly posts on social media.

In the underlying litigation, CAIR got a Final Judgment for $124,423.37 [in attorney fees, more on that here. -EV] Post-judgment litigation ensued. The parties resolved their dispute through a written Settlement Agreement. As part of the settlement, CAIR agreed to forego half of the Final Judgment. The Settlement Agreement contained a non-disparagement term that prohibited Ms. Loomer from speaking about CAIR:

Plaintiffs [Loomer et al.] shall never make any comments, of any kind, about CAIR in the future. Violation of this provision shall be a substantive breach of this Settlement….

Plaintiffs may publicly respond to any specific statement by Defendants or their authorized agents that discuss Plaintiffs by name. Plaintiffs may not use the exception for such responses to begin making general comments about Defendants outside of responding to the specific statement.

The Settlement Agreement does not set a time limit for when Ms. Loomer can respond to specific statements that name her.

The parties agreed that a violation of the non-disparagement provision was a substantive breach of the Settlement Agreement. They further agreed that a substantive breach could be enforced as a contempt of court. The Settlement Agreement called for fee shifting if CAIR had to enforce the agreement. At the parties' request, this Court adopted the Settlement Agreement as its own Order. The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce its order.

On June 30, 2025, CAIR began speaking about Ms. Loomer by name. It published "CAIR in the News, June 30, 2025" on its www.cair.com website. The posting included a link to a Newsweek article and quoted CAIR's research and advocacy director accusing Ms. Loomer of "spewing" racist, bigoted, nonsensical, and Islamaphobic ideas ….

On July 30, 2025, CAIR published "CAIR Press Releases" on its website. It referred to Ms. Loomer as "the notorious and proud Islamaphobic figure Laura Loomer" and accused Ms. Loomer of "promot[ing] a false anti-Palestinian racist narrative." …

Between August 16 and October 13, CAIR made multiple public statements that negatively referenced Ms. Loomer.

On the morning of October 26, 2025, Sami Hamdi was arrested at the San Francisco Airport while on his way to speak at a CAIR event in Tampa, Florida. At 10:05 a.m., Ms. Loomer posted a tweet saying in relevant part:

Sources at DHS @DHSgov have told me that Muslim Brotherhood official Sami Hamdi @SALHACHIMI was just ARRESTED by ICE @ICEgov agents at San Francisco International Airport as he was traveling to Tampa, Florida to headline an event for a Jihadist, pro-HAMAS and Muslim Brotherhood 501c3 group tonight.

That afternoon, CAIR issued a press release that called Ms. Loomer an "anti-Muslim extremist":

Anti-Muslim extremist Laura Loomer has publicly taken credit for [Mr. Hamdi's] abduction, claiming that ICE acted in response to her demands and smearing Hamdi with various anti-Muslim conspiracy theories.

CAIR previously called on Secretary of State Marco Rubio to address whether he spoke directly with anti-Muslim extremist Laura Loomer, as she claims, before banning Palestinian children injured by American weapons in Gaza from seeking medical care in the U.S. and condemned his decision.

A day after Loomer posted videos on social media complaining about children from Gaza arriving in the U.S. for medical treatment and questioning how they obtained visas, the State Department said it was halting all visitor visas for people from Gaza pending a review. In a tweet, Loomer thanked Senator Rubio for halting the visas. The New York Times reported that Loomer said she spoke with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Friday night to alert him to the flights and what she called the threat of an "Islamic invasion."

Later that day, at 6:27 p.m., Ms. Loomer published a tweet saying in relevant part:

[Mr. Hamdi] was on his way from California to Tampa, Fl today to speak at a GALA hosted by a pro-HAMAS, Muslim Brotherhood 501c3 that still has not had their 501c3 status revoked under the Trump admin, despite their long history of supporting Islamic jihadists (there are court records to back this up).

Why are jihadists still operating with 501c3 statuses here in the US?

Later that evening, after CAIR made other public statements about Ms. Loomer, including at its event in Tampa, Ms. Loomer posted a tweet that accused CAIR, by name, of having "historical financial and organizational ties to Hamas—a designated Islamic terrorist organization—and the Muslim Brotherhood." She also called for CAIR's tax exempt status to be revoked ….

CAIR says Ms. Loomer's public statements on October 26 violate the non-disparagement term of the Settlement Order. They ask the Court to (1) award fees and costs incurred in enforcing the Settlement Order, (2) require Ms. Loomer to issue a retraction and to delete the offending posts, (3) require Ms. Loomer to pay the balance of the Final Judgment, and (4) authorize discovery into whether Ms. Loomer has made other statements that might violate the Settlement Order….

The Report noted that the court did have the power to enforce the settlement agreement (which had been adopted as a court decree) with civil contempt sanctions, if CAIR could show by clear and convincing evidence that Loomer breached the agreement. But it concluded that Loomer's comments didn't violate the agreement because they fell within the provision allowing responses on her part:

CAIR has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Loomer's statements are "general comments about [CAIR] outside of responding to [CAIR's] specific statement[s]." Between June 20 and October 13, CAIR gratuitously made multiple statements accusing Ms. Loomer of, among other things, being a racist, a bigot, an Islamophobe, an anti-Muslim extremist, and the purveyor of a false anti-Palestinian racist narrative. On October 26, less than two weeks after CAIR's last specific statement naming Ms. Loomer, she publicly commented on Mr. Hamid's arrest and referenced that Mr. Hamid had been "traveling to Tampa, Florida to headline an event for a Jihadist, pro-HAMAS and Muslim Brotherhood 501c3 group tonight." She did not identify CAIR by name, but she concedes her statement was referring to CAIR. After CAIR made further derogatory statements about her on October 26, Ms. Loomer posted a tweet that accused CAIR, by name, of having "historical financial and organizational ties to Hamas—a designated Islamic terrorist organization—and the Muslim Brotherhood." She also called for CAIR's tax exempt status to be revoked.

A reasonable interpretation of Ms. Loomer's comments on October 26 is that CAIR's criticisms of Ms. Loomer are not credible because CAIR is violating federal tax laws and is affiliated with international terrorist organizations whose policies Ms. Loomer publicly has opposed. {To be clear, the Court takes no position on Ms. Loomer's characterizations of CAIR, Hamas, or the Muslim Brotherhood. Nor does the Court take a position on CAIR's characterizations of Ms. Loomer.} Similarly, it is a reasonable interpretation that Ms. Loomer is saying CAIR's specific statements naming her should not be believed because (1) CAIR is not an impartial evaluator of her views, (2) CAIR is biased in claiming that she is anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian and (3) CAIR is making these accusations to silence her from criticizing CAIR and to raise money from its supporters. CAIR has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that these interpretations are wrong….

CAIR argues that if Ms. Loomer can make these kind of statements, it has been deprived of the benefit of its contractual bargain, which was designed to prevent Ms. Loomer from disparaging CAIR. Ms. Loomer contracted away some of her First Amendment rights and CAIR retains the ability to hold her to that bargain. But, Ms. Loomer also retains the ability to speak in ways that do not violate the partes' agreement. All the Court concludes today is that CAIR has not produced clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Loomer's conduct on October 26 exceeded the bounds of that agreement….

Arielle Klepach and Erielle Azerrad (National Jewish Advocacy Center), Craig William Young (CWY Legal and Consulting), Ronald D. Coleman (Dhillon Law Group, Inc.), and Todd Rapp Friedman represent plaintiffs.