On August 1, 2025, United States district judge Kevin Castel issued the ruling of Nunes v. NBCUniversal Inc., No. 22-01633 regarding an incident during a March 2021 episode of the The Rachel Meadow Show. Rachel Maddow is a political commentator, celebrated TV host, and author that has published various analyses on the status quo. During the episode, Rachel Maddow claimed that American politician Devin Nunes refused to hand a suspicious package he received over to the FBI. This package was linked to a Russian interface and from Ukrainian legislator Andrii Derkach, who was sanctioned to send to the United States. This was derived from December of 2019 during the height of the Trump-impeachment-related tensions, as well as when the House investigated foreign interference in American politics; around this time, Nunes received an unexpected package. According to Nunes’ testimony, the package came to his office without prior notice and its contents were never reviewed by him personally. Instead, his staff members immediately handed the sealed package to the FBI the same day. Nunes also stated that he then notified Attorney General William Barr in writing to inform the Justice Department that his office had received unsolicited materials from a foreign national. His legal filings stress that this prompt handover to the FBI was meant to ensure law enforcement could determine whether the materials were part of a foreign interference operation.
Political Bias Does Not Constitute Ill Intent
Nunes argued that Maddow’s long-standing critical coverage of him, paired with her political orientation, showed that she was predisposed to portray him negatively. However, the court cited the principle that holding bias cannot prove actual malice. In United States defamation law, there are two ways to force actual malice, the defendant knew the statement was false and acted with reckless disregard. This meant that Nunes could not utilize subjectivity or opinion as a proper metric for defamation. As a result, Castel labeled Nunes’ assertions as bare without supporting evidence of Maddow’s subjective awareness of falsity. Even if this imposes a conflict of interest between the two, that is not actionable under the First Amendment. The ruling stresses that this protection prevents political adversaries from weaponizing defamation law against outspoken journalists. The court reaffirmed that bias and hostility alone doesn’t satisfy the actual hostility requirement.
Lack of Proof of Awareness
Nunes argued that other reports, including a Breitbart News article and later media coverage, showed that the package had indeed been handed over to the FBI while Maddow neglected this evidence. This was one of the key components of his case, which he framed as reckless disregard. Through depositions, NBCUniversal showed that Maddow and Gnazzo were unaware of those contradictory accounts before the broadcast. NBCUniversal stressed Gnazzo’s and Maddow’s testimonial to show lack of actual malice because they relied on a reputable source. That directly undermined Nunes’ defamation claim, because without proof they knowingly broadcast a falsehood. Judge Castel stressed that actual malice is subjective, not only is it not enough that contradictory facts existed; the plaintiff must show that the defendant was aware of them. Overall, without proof of awareness, there is no proof that Maddow entertained serious doubts about the truth of her statement. The judge noted that this is a common flaw in public figure defamation claims: plaintiffs conflate the existence of contrary facts with the defendant’s knowledge of those same facts.
Information Derived from a Renowned News Outlet
Maddow’s team based the contested statement partly on a July 23, 2020 Politico article; according to a source familiar to the matter the package from Andrii Derkach “was not turned over to the FBI.” They claim this was not some obscure blog, but rather a reputable national news outlet. In regards to this, courts have held that reliance on credible, mainstream sources usually cuts against a finding of legitimate malice. The court in this instance ruled that Maddow’s reliance on Politico’s reporting was objectively reasonable and in the past she showed no errors in reporting before her broadcast. Therefore, her actions were consistent with standard journalistic practice and inconsistent with reckless regard.
First Amendment Harnesses an Essential Safeguard
When the plaintiff is a government employee or political figure, the First Amendment places a high barrier to entry regarding defamation claims. This standard comes from the landmark New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) ruling. Under it, the plaintiff must provide a basis for actual malice from clear and convincing evidence. Actual malice is a term in United States defamation law which does not mean ill will. It means the defendant published a statement a) knowing it was false, or b) with reckless disregard. Reckless disregard is met only if the defendant had serious subjective doubts about the truth but chose to publish anyway. Judge Castel emphasized that Nune’s filings did not identify evidence, showing Maddow believed that the statement was probably false. Nunes’ filings did not identify evidence showing that Maddow believed her statement was false. Even assuming it was given to the FBI, that alone does not meet the bar. The ruling cites Second Circuit precedent iterating that failure to investigate or mere negligence is insufficient; there must be evidence of the speaker’s mental state at the time of the publication. The court pointed out that even if Maddow’s language was inaccurate or imprecise, without proof that she knew it was false or seriously doubted it, the case could not undergo effective summary judgement. This threshold exists to protect robust political commentary from constant litigation from public officials.
The outcome resulted in Judge Castel concluding, “No reasonable jury could find that the NCBU made the statement with constitutionally-defined malice.” In this case, Maddow’s reliance on a Politico report, her lack of knowledge about contradictory information, and insufficiency of bias allegations meant Maddow could not be found guilty. The decision reaffirms that political disagreement and critical coverage are not enough to override constitutional safeguards. As a result, the summary judgment was granted in affirmation of NCBUniversal and protects future instances of reporters with their content.