NewsApril 17, 2023
Judge delays trial over Fox News and 2020 election lies
NEW YORK -- Without citing a reason, the Delaware judge overseeing a voting machine company's $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News announced late Sunday that he was delaying the start of the trial until Tuesday. The trial, which has drawn international interest, had been scheduled to start Monday morning with jury selection and opening statements...
By DAVID BAUDER ~ Associated Press
NEW YORK -- Without citing a reason, the Delaware judge overseeing a voting machine company's $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News announced late Sunday that he was delaying the start of the trial until Tuesday.
The trial, which has drawn international interest, had been scheduled to start Monday morning with jury selection and opening statements.
The case centers on whether Fox defamed Dominion Voting Systems by spreading false claims that the company rigged the 2020 presidential election to prevent former President Donald Trump's reelection. Records produced as part of the lawsuit show that many of the network's hosts and executives didn't believe the allegations but aired them, anyway.
Claire Bischoff, a Dominion spokesperson, said the company would have no comment on the trial delay. Representatives for Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corp., the entities Dominion is suing, did not immediately return requests for comment. In his statement, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis said only that the trial, including jury selection, would be continued until Tuesday and that he would announce the delay in court on Monday.
That's when Fox News executives and the network's star hosts were scheduled to begin answering for their role in spreading doubt about the 2020 presidential election and creating the gaping wound that remains in America's democracy.
Jurors hearing the $1.6 billion lawsuit filed against Fox by Dominion Voting Systems would have to answer a specific question: Did Fox defame the voting machine company by airing bogus stories alleging that the election was rigged against then-President Donald Trump, even as many at the network privately doubted the false claims being pushed by Trump and his allies?
Yet the broader context looms large. A trial would test press freedom and the reputation of conservatives' favorite news source. It also would illuminate the flow of misinformation that helped spark the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and continues to fuel Trump's hopes to regain power in 2024.
Fox News stars Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity and founder Rupert Murdoch are among the people who had been expected to testify.
Barring a settlement, opening statements are now scheduled for Tuesday.
"This is Christmas Eve for defamation scholars," said RonNell Andersen Jones, a University of Utah law professor.
If the trial were a sporting event, Fox News would be taking the field on a losing streak, with key players injured and having just alienated the referee. Pretrial court rulings and embarrassing revelations about its biggest names have Fox on its heels.
Court papers released over the past two months show Fox executives, producers and personalities privately disbelieved Trump's claims of a fraudulent election. But Dominion says Fox News was afraid of alienating its audience with the truth, particularly after many viewers were angered by the network's decision to declare Democrat Joe Biden the winner in Arizona on election night in November 2020.
Some rulings by the judge have eased Dominion's path. In a summary judgment, Davis said it was "CRYSTAL clear" that fraud allegations against the company were false. That means trial time won't have to be spent disproving them at a time when millions of Republicans continue to doubt the 2020 results.
Davis said it also is clear that Dominion's reputation was damaged, but that it would be up to a jury to decide whether Fox acted with "actual malice" -- the legal standard -- and, if so, what that's worth financially.
Receive Daily Headlines FREESign up today!
Fox witnesses would likely testify that they thought the allegations against Dominion were newsworthy, but Davis made it clear that's not a defense against defamation.
New York law protects news outlets from defamation for expressions of opinion. But Davis methodically went through 20 different times on Fox when allegations against Dominion were discussed, ruling that all of them were fully or partly considered statements of fact, and fair game for a potential libel finding.
"A lawsuit is a little bit like hitting a home run," said Cary Coglianese, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "You have to go through all of the bases to get there." The judge's rulings "basically give Dominion a spot at third base, and all they have to do is come home to win it."
Both Fox and Dominion are incorporated in Delaware, though Fox News is headquartered in New York and Dominion is based in Denver.
Fox angered Davis this past week when the judge said the network's lawyers delayed producing evidence and were not forthcoming in revealing Murdoch's role at Fox News. A Fox lawyer, Blake Rohrbacher, sent a letter of apology to Davis on Friday, saying it was a misunderstanding and not an intention to deceive.
It's not clear whether that would affect a trial. But it's generally not wise to have a judge wonder at the outset of a trial whether your side is telling the truth, particularly when truth is the central point of the case, Jones said.
The lawsuit essentially comes down to whether Dominion can prove Fox acted with actual malice by putting something on the air knowing that it was false or acting with a "reckless disregard" for whether it was true. In most libel cases, that is the most difficult hurdle for plaintiffs to get past.
Dominion can point to many examples where Fox figures didn't believe the charges being made by Trump allies such as Sidney Powell and Rudolph Giuliani. But Fox says many of those disbelievers were not in a position to decide when to air those allegations.
"We think it's essential for them to connect those dots," Fox lawyer Erin Murphy said.
If the case goes to trial, the jury will determine whether a powerful figure like Murdoch -- who testified in a deposition that he didn't believe the election-fraud charges -- had the influence to keep the accusations off the air.
"Credibility is always important in any trial in any case. But it's going to be really important in this case," said Jane Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and the Law at the University of Minnesota.
Kirtley is concerned that the suit may eventually advance to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could use it as a pretext to weaken the actual malice standard that was set in a 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. That, she feels, would be disastrous for journalists.
Dominion's lawsuit is being closely watched by another voting-technology company with a separate but similar case against Fox News. Florida-based Smartmatic has looked to some rulings and evidence in the Dominion case to try to enhance its own $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit in New York. The Smartmatic case isn't yet ready for trial but has survived Fox News' effort to get it tossed out.
Many experts are surprised Fox and Dominion have not reached an out-of-court settlement, though they can at any time. There's presumably a wide financial gulf. In court papers, Fox contends the $1.6 billion damages claim is a wild overestimate.
Dominion's motivation may also be to inflict maximum embarrassment on Fox with the peek into the network's internal communications following the election. Text messages from January 2021 revealed Carlson telling a friend that he passionately hated Trump and couldn't wait to move on.
Dominion may also seek an apology.
The trial has had no apparent effect on Fox News' viewership; it remains the top-rated cable network. And there is little indication that the case has changed Fox's editorial direction. Fox has embraced Trump once again in recent weeks following the former president's indictment by a Manhattan grand jury, and Carlson presented an alternate history of Capitol riot, based on tapes given to him by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.
Associated Press writers Randall Chase in Dover, Delaware, and Jennifer Peltz in New York contributed to this report.
Story Tags
Connect with the Southeast Missourian Newsroom:
For corrections to this story or other insights for the editor, click here. To submit a letter to the editor, click here. To learn about the Southeast Missourian’s AI Policy, click here.
Related
NewsDec. 10
Advertisement
Receive Daily Headlines FREESign up today!
