As someone who has taught torts (including defamation) for three decades, I pay close attention to defamation claims coming out of campaigns. I often question the viability of such claims given the higher burden for public officials and public figures under controlling defamation cases. However, a claim during the New Jersey gubernatorial debate between Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) and Republican Jack Ciattarelli, may have triggered a viable torts case. It occurred when Sherrill accused Ciattarelli of “killing thousands.”
Ciattarelli is threatening a defamation lawsuit and it is no idle threat.
The moment came in the debate after Ciattarelli hit Sherrill for first expressing sympathy for Charlie Kirk after his assassination, but then flipping when the left responded with rage and “calling him a misogynist and a racist.”
Rep. Sherrill responded by condemning Ciattarelli for owning a medical publishing business. However, Ciattarelli then noted that he at least “got to walk at my graduation.” It was a reference to Rep. Sherrill not being allowed to walk at her graduation from the United States Naval Academy, reportedly due to her unspecified involvement in a cheating scandal.
Sherrill shot back with “I’m so glad you went on to kill tens of thousands of people in New Jersey, including children.”
It is the most dangerous legal moment for campaign lawyers when your candidate strikes out in the heat of a debate. What is interesting is that Sherrill then seemed to double down. She told USA Today that
“I guess, to me, it’s not a leap to say that somebody… who was printing [the opioid companies’] misinformation about how safe this was, who then took the next step further to coach people through. This is a time when, at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, we’re talking about ‘How are we going to stop these pill pushers?’ and so we’re trying to stop the overprescription of pharmaceuticals as he’s trying to help people go around these doctors.”
Her campaign also pushed back. Sean Higgins, Sherrill’s communications director, said
“Jack’s reaction is to hide behind a lawsuit, not to take responsibility. What’s reckless and irresponsible is Jack Ciattarelli making millions of dollars profiting off the pain of New Jerseyans — publishing misinformation about the dangers of opioid addiction and developing an app to coach patients to ask doctors for more drugs.”
Fact-checkers with PolitiFact and the New Jersey Globe have rejected Sherrill’s claim as untrue.
The failure to issue a retraction leaves Sherill more open to a lawsuit.
The common law has long recognized per se categories of defamation where damages are presumed and special damages need not be proven. These include: (1) disparaging a person’s professional character or standing; (2) alleging a person is unchaste; (3) alleging that a person has committed a criminal act or act of moral turpitude; (4) alleging a person has a sexual or loathsome disease; and (5) attacking a person’s business or professional reputation.
Claiming that Ciattarelli “killed thousands” would certainly fall within these per se categories.
The challenge for Ciattarelli will be the higher standard. Under New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court crafted the actual malice standard that required public officials to shoulder the higher burden of proving defamation. Under that standard, an official would have to show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. That standard was later extended to public figures.
Courts tend to be leery of lawsuits that turn on overheated campaign exchanges. However, this is an express statement that Ciattarelli killed thousands. Sherrill will claim that this was mere campaign rhetoric or obvious opinion.
The Supreme Court dealt with such an overheated council meeting in Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970), in which a newspaper was sued for using the word “blackmail” in connection to a real estate developer who was negotiating with the Greenbelt City Council to obtain zoning variances. The Court applied the actual malice standard and noted:
It is simply impossible to believe that a reader who reached the word “blackmail” in either article would not have understood exactly what was meant: It was Bresler’s public and wholly legal negotiating proposals that were being criticized. No reader could have thought that either the speakers at the meetings or the newspaper articles reporting their words were charging Bresler with the commission of a criminal offense. On the contrary, even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered Bresler’s negotiating position extremely unreasonable.
The question is whether saying that a candidate literally killed thousands can be dismissed as “rhetorical hyperbole.”
The Supreme Court has shown that there are limits to opinion as a defense as in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990). In that case, there was another inflammatory allegation stemming from a public meeting. An Ohio high school wrestling coach sued over an opinion column alleging that he had lied under oath at a public hearing, saying that it was tantamount to an allegation of perjury.
The trial judge granted summary judgment on the ground that the assertion in the newspaper column was opinion. The Court however rejected the defense in the case in 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The Court noted that “expressions of ‘opinion’ may often imply an assertion of objective fact” and may inflict “as much damage to reputation” as factual claims. Moreover, some opinions are based on assertions that are “sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false.”
Saying that a candidate killed thousands would certainly seem to be something “susceptible of being proved true or false.” Moreover, there is ample evidence of malice or reckless disregard in context.
In my view, there is enough here to defeat a motion to dismiss. While she could score a favorable trial judge, I would be surprised if a threshold dismissal would survive appellate review. In other words, Sherrill could well find herself in a trial for defamation.
I’m wondering if merely attempting to dupe the public for political advantage is cause enough for civil lawsuit. Why does it have to besmirch an individual or entity? Many times, defamation is not the motive but just a side effect of pushing out a false narrative.
One bright sign was Trump’s lawsuit against Paramount/CBS for sympathetic editing of Kamala Harris’ interview.
There was no attempt to defame Trump, only to make Harris look better an an alternative. Yet, CBS settled for $16 million. This shows real progress towards broadening the scope of actionable public frauds. It really shouldn’t matter whether defamation is an element — the greater affront is treating the public as putty to be manipulated.
“I’m wondering if merely attempting to dupe the public for political advantage is cause enough for civil lawsuit.”
Yes, yes, we’ve heard you say it a hundred times.
More tort!!!!
I’m still steamed about the way the Hunter Biden laptop incident was “managed” with ex-CIA professional infowarfare assistance (and aided by sympathetic media). We might have avoided Biden’s 4 year debacle if that whopper had been sued immediately, and depositions ordered before Election Day.
Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but nothing has been done to prevent the next election from being stolen through deceitful manipulation of the electorate. Doing nothing is just escapist thinking about the consequences. What would those be?….. the voters learn they’ve been duped after the winner is certified but before the Inauguration. What do you imagine happens in those 6 weeks?
Het you want 12 morons to decide the complex question.
Look at what we’ve seen juries do recently.
Its ridiculous on its face.
You suffer from media Negative News Bias. How many jury verdicts would you estimate are rendered every day in the US? 5-10,000 would be a good starting guess. The national media only picks up on the less than 10/year that are in any way controversial. Therefore, based on news that was never covered about the 3 million verdicts that were accepted without controversy — you condemn the jury system as fundamentally flawed? Because it only gets it right 99.9993% of the time?
Reality is that which the media ignores because it is too good, too normal and too expected.
But many fools take what is cherry-picked for coverage as their only “reality”, and remain unmoved by everything not covered as if it doesn’t exist. This is the mental disorder I mention.
Responsible speakers assess the audience. The general public in general, listens concretely, literal meaning. Some are second language and unfamiliar with hyperbole. Politicians of intelligence and integrity do not reduce speeches using comraderie stearing clear of familiarity with rabble.
Another death threat in writing and its author has been apprehended.
Her false accusation here is in line with her exclusion from her USNA graduation for not reporting a widespread cheating scandal. That immense failure in integrity for future military officer would have gotten her expelled from at least one other service academy at the time.
It would have gotten her expelled from both the Military Academy (West
Point), and the Air Force Academy. Both have an “Honor Code” which has a non-tolerance clause. The Naval Academy on the other hand has an Honor Concept, which lacks a non-tolerance clause.
We will not lie, cheat or steal. We will not tolerate those among us who do. She should have been dismissed. The fact that she wasn’t was indicative of the beginning of “woke” and DEI.
“TOO HIGH DEI”
“LESBIAN LIAISON AT THE WHITE HOUSE”
_______________________________________________
AI Overview
Captain Rebecca Lobach was the female Army helicopter pilot killed in the January 2025 crash that occurred when her Black Hawk helicopter collided with an American Airlines-affiliated flight near Washington, D.C. The 28-year-old pilot was one of three crew members aboard the helicopter, all of whom died in the collision.
Identity:
Captain Rebecca Lobach, age 28.
Role: She was co-piloting the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter at the time of the crash.
Incident: The helicopter collided with an American Airlines-affiliated flight near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, resulting in 67 fatalities.
Background: Lobach was a distinguished military graduate from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and served as a White House Military Social Aide, among other roles.
Other crew: The other two crew members killed were Chief Warrant Officer Andrew Eaves and Staff Sergeant Ryan O’Hara.
67 fatalities, Becca!
Cllaw
A perfect prerequisite for a Democratic candidate!
She is now cheating her voters out of an official explanation. Cheating is a life-long methodology. It works!
Same old story. She’s playing the hate the rich guy card. Never mind that the mayor of Chicago is a millionaire many times over. It’s not quite “there gonna put you all back in chains” spoken by Joe Biden
but he’s gonna get you all hooked on drugs and your gonna all die a miserable death is pretty close.
Ya’ll come on over now we gonna have a real nice election registration barbecue on Sunday.
I hear tell that them there Republicans gonna rule out barbecue and moonshine liquor and they’re gonna throw grandma off a cliff if they catch her savorin the taste if that there fine porcine slab o ribs.
They been doing the same thing for a long time simply because the believe that there’s a sucker born every minute and if you just scare em enough they’ll pull that lever next to that there big blue “D”.
Slightly more sophisticated but the same nevertheless.
“believe that there’s a sucker born every minute ”
This is NJ – we elected, and then reelected, Phil Murphy – it’s more like one born every 10 seconds…
They are not mere suckers, but rather parasites.
They vote for “free stuff” and “free status,” which the Supreme Court refuses to strike down for its absolute and immutable unconstitutionality.
If they couldn’t vote for “free stuff” and “free status,” they would have no reason to vote, and they wouldn’t.
You’re giving NJ Dem voters credit for rationality (as in self-interest) that most of them lack. Their lives consist merely of going through the motions that they were indoctrinated to make in NJ’s abysmal public schools: join a union; work as little as possible; collect unemployment when possible; food stamps and other welfare when it’s not; pull the Democratic Party lever in November.
They’re not voting, they’re begging for “free stuff” and “free status.”
If they couldn’t vote for “free stuff” and “free status,” they wouldn’t vote at all.
Did she give a damn about the 187 people who die every day from fentanyl poisoning caused by the Democrats open border policy.
Doctors may prescribe opioids for the following reasons:
Pain Management: Opioids are powerful pain relievers that can effectively manage moderate to severe pain, such as post-surgical pain, chronic pain conditions (e.g., cancer, fibromyalgia), and acute pain (e.g., trauma, injuries).
If she really cared about drug addiction and deaths she would have called for closing the Biden open border long ago but she kept her lips tightly closed and pressed them firmly against Joe Biden’s nether regions.
As Chucky Schumer said, it’s time for her chickens to come home to roost laying a plethora of chicken poop on her bank account. Let the festivities began.
Johnathon’s topic, the common law tort duty not to defame another person finds itself in the company of political calculus in these facts. The timeline for the election is foreseeably shorter than litigation of the tort. Electionwise, bringing suit might move Sherrill toward a Hillary Clinton problem: public perception of unlikeability. If Ciattarelli loses the election, but prevails on a verdict of liability, the separate finding of the make whole remedy of damages may speak to both the political calculus and the merits of the tort itself.
Since Mikie is a Navy chopper pilot, if elected, Mikie will probably use the NJ State Police chopper to get around town.
Are you trying to be funny? Fail
Nope. Former NJ Gov. Chris Christie used the NJ State Police chopper all the time.
Does the NJSP have a CH-47?
“Does the NJSP have a CH-47?”
No Chinook, but they do have a Huey:
https://www.helis.com/database/sqd/New-Jersey-State-Police/cn
No and Nope. How about an NJ National Guard Apache AH-64. Mikie can hardly wait. Mikie will tax the hell out of you….Or else. You were warned, if you’re a one issue voter and taxes are your issue, pack your bags and get out of NJ!
Yada, yada, yada…Sure this foul democrat should be sued for her remarks but let’s not get sidetracked. Our nation’s most important job at this time is indicting the true criminals running loose in government since hillary first held any form of government office and all that has followed since 2009. Let us get our priorities straight and concentrate on them rather than some half-baked dem tool ex-congresswoman who will lie like a rug anyway.
This was calculated desperation and she felt insulted (experiencing violence to the Left). This victimized woman’s verbal counterpunch at a white male Corporate CEO figure will be seen as factual enough and will earn her more media, donor, and voter support from her side. His reaction will be viewed as weak, Republican voters will be shamed into not supporting him, and non-affiliated voters may feel it could be sufficiently truthful in regard to the the industry as a whole. If she wins, due in part to this ploy, there will be no problem paying off the damages. If, somehow she manages to lose, it was a gamble worth taking and this accusation will be hung around his neck for his term as governor. She will not be hung out to face financial consequences alone either way, and he will be gender-pressured to be the “bigger man” and not hold her to account no matter a loss or win in the election.
So Republican voters will be shamed just like they were shamed and didn’t vote to give Republicans control of all three branches of government and the Supreme Court. What Republicans don’t need is more Eeyore woe is me attitude. Pitch in or stay home.
I am from NJ and find that this woman holds ‘no confidence’ for leadership. The stumbling of her statements and an unclear, indecisive messaging is hardly what this State needs. Why do people think that running for office gives permission to say anything and pretend to be everything. Serving fellow Americans should be an honor and one of high moral and good public policy. Look at VA and the race for AG! What a sheer disgrace that anyone seeking this office should be so base and hateful. Amazing that anyone would want a law official to prescribe utter words of even ‘I wish…’ We will see if Virginians have the courage and common sense to seek a neutral AG. And we will see if NJ can actually do the same in this Governor’s race!
“I am from NJ and find that this woman holds ‘no confidence’ for leadership. The stumbling of her statements and an unclear, indecisive messaging is hardly what this State needs.”
I am also from NJ, and I have been questioning her posturing as some kind of military wonderkind. She did achieve heli pilot training and certification, but so freaking what? I was unable to come up with the number of women helicopter pilots in the US Navy, but there are ~262 in the US Army, and the Navy has in excess of 1,600 women pilots, overall. Frankly, I never have seen how most military experience is relevant to qualification for elective political positions. But, leaving that question aside, what did she do with that experience? Did she fly any combat, or otherwise critical missions? Did she do any mission flying at all beyond what she needed to complete to earn the certification? I have seen zero evidence that is the case. She is nothing but a crummy poser, intended to cruise into office only because NJ has such an immense base of idiot, knee-jerk, Democrat voters.
Mr Ciattarelli had better file his lawsuit south of the Driscoll Bridge if he hopes to be treated fairly.
OT,
To the annony moron and the slow and dumb one, are you going to own up to the fact you were wrong . . . again?
Doctor Says Trump’s Health ‘Exceptional’ After 3-Hour Evaluation
“President Donald J. Trump remains in exceptional health, exhibiting strong cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurological and physical performance,” Barbabella wrote.
Barbabella also said he evaluated Trump’s cardiac age, which was about 14 years younger than his chronological age.
condemning Ciattarelli for owning a medical publishing business.
I can’t see where a contract to publish a drug producers drug information and warnings on the drug is ‘killing thousands of people’. He was hired to do a job, he did not develop the drug, test the drug, approve the drug, prescribe the drug, MANDATE the drug or lie about the drug, he merely fulfilled a contract to publish the makers information. What she said is a blatant provable lie with the intent to injure him not just in the campaign but in his personal business. He should sue, she should lose and be held accountable with a Punitive damages award.
In regards to Sullivan, I don’t understand how the Supreme Court can thumb their nose at the 14th Amendment’ss guarantee of equal protection under the law, and just declare two classes of citizens with different levels of anti-defamation deterrence? Can someone explain it? It sounds like Prof. Turley has bought into the two-tiered system of justice erected by Sullivan. It’s obvious that many fewer high-achieving persons are now willing to run for elective office because of Sullivan. It has tilted the game in favor of high-functioning psychopaths, as they aren’t affected emotionally by being defamed, and have zero qualms about lying to defame others.
Are others willing to connect the dots between Sullivan and a constriction of the political candidate pipeline?
Go for it and maybe it will be a good start towards dropping the temp a little.
Hopeful fantasy for Johnathan
Its politics and the pathetic antics can be seen by members of both parties.
Over the last ten years. I’ve only seen one party going nuts. Lib/Dems
Yet, the current President of the United States now has a sizable downpayment on his Presidential Library from the lawsuits he has won against some of those who slandered him. George had the fork over a million dollars personally in the ABC lawsuit.
If a person slanders they should be taken to task.
One of the better of the feeble “they both do exactly the same thing to the same degree” attempts at building a sand castle of Democrat moral equivalency to defend the Democrat Borg.
Democrats might get slightly more clever in their Golden Years.
“. . . Sherrill then seemed to double down.” (JT)
In the heat of the moment, you lash out. Upon reflection, a decent person (with a modicum of self-esteem) says: “That was uncalled for. I’m sorry.”
Draw your own conclusions about Sherrill.
Interesting. I wonder if they will go to court.
“I wonder if they will go to court.”
Doubtful. And if it does, it will be tried in NJ, which is a land of leftist liars, particularly of the political persuasion, and a jury drawn from residents here will be highly indisposed to regard the statements as anything other than run-of-the-mill trash talk.
Well the polls in NJ for that race are pretty close, so I’m thinking jury nullification by Sherrill supporters doesn’t give an outright win, more likely a hung jury. Which I guess is close enough.
“Well the polls in NJ for that race are pretty close”
We shall see. I have lived here my entire life with the exception of a four-ear stint in NY State, and I have seen NJ elect token Republicans (nearly all RINOS) to the governorship a very few times. More than anything else, it seems to be a way for a fearful and impotent electorate to blow off steam without the risk of actually rocking the boat very much. Given the close polling, I am hopeful for this election, but not optimistic. Even if Ciatterelli does win, he will be amply crippled by the NJ legislature.
Yes. That statement of “killing thousands” seemed a bit out of bounds to me, and I’m far from being a lawyer. It seemed something like charges against Cuomo and the nursing home debacle. Cuomo would not have dared sue. He would have been ruined before he was ruined.
In our modern days of using the courts for anything and everything except the law, we may see the first governor-elect facing a libelous action within days of being elected.
There is NO ONE more hate filled, greedy, lying, violent, hypocrite than a Democrat
Maybe settle for just killing her campaign?
In any reasonable situation her campaign would have been summarily executed following the revelation that she did not walk at graduation with her Annapolis class because she abetting the cheaters.