In a significant ruling on August 4, 2025, a federal judge in New York dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by former California Republican Congressman Devin Nunes against MSNBC host Rachel Maddow and the network’s parent company, NBCUniversal. The case, which stemmed from comments made by Maddow during a March 18, 2021, broadcast of her program, The Rachel Maddow Show, centered on allegations that Nunes had mishandled a suspicious package linked to a Ukrainian parliamentarian with ties to Russia. The decision marks another legal setback for Nunes, who has pursued multiple lawsuits against media outlets in recent years.

Background of the Lawsuit

Devin Nunes, a prominent figure in Republican politics and a staunch ally of former President Donald Trump, filed the lawsuit in 2021. At the time, Nunes was no longer serving in Congress, having resigned in 2022 to become the CEO of Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of Truth Social. The lawsuit targeted Maddow and MSNBC, claiming that the host’s statements during her broadcast were defamatory and caused reputational harm to Nunes.

The controversy arose from a segment in which Maddow discussed a package Nunes allegedly received from Andrii Derkach, a Ukrainian lawmaker identified by the U.S. government as a Russian agent and sanctioned in 2020 for election interference. Maddow suggested that Nunes, then a high-ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, had failed to turn over the package to the FBI, an action she described as obligatory for someone in his position. She stated, “If you get a package from a foreign national who’s been sanctioned for trying to interfere in our election, you’re supposed to give it to the FBI. Devin Nunes didn’t do that.”

Nunes’ complaint argued that Maddow’s remarks were false and damaging, asserting that he had, in fact, provided the package to federal authorities. He claimed that Maddow’s statements were part of a broader pattern of biased reporting by MSNBC, accusing the network of promoting a liberal agenda to discredit conservative figures.

The Court’s Ruling

U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel, presiding over the case in the Southern District of New York, issued a 24-page ruling that decisively rejected Nunes’ claims. The judge found that Nunes failed to meet the legal threshold for defamation, particularly the requirement to prove “actual malice” under the landmark 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan. This standard mandates that a public figure, such as Nunes, must demonstrate that the defendant knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

In his ruling, Judge Castel emphasized that Maddow’s statements were grounded in a 2020 Politico article, which reported that the FBI had received a package from Nunes linked to Derkach. The judge noted that there was no evidence to suggest Maddow was aware of any inaccuracies in her reporting or that she deliberately ignored contradictory information. “The plaintiff has not shown that Maddow’s statements were made with actual malice,” Castel wrote. “There is no clear and convincing evidence that the defendants acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.”

The ruling also addressed Nunes’ broader allegations of political bias. Castel dismissed the claim that Maddow’s liberal leanings drove her to fabricate or distort facts, stating that ideological differences alone do not constitute defamation. “Disagreement with a journalist’s perspective does not equate to evidence of malicious intent,” the judge wrote.

Context of Nunes’ Legal Battles

This lawsuit is part of a series of legal actions initiated by Nunes against media organizations and individuals he perceives as adversaries. Since 2019, Nunes has filed lawsuits against outlets such as CNN, The Washington Post, and McClatchy, as well as social media accounts, including the parody account “Devin Nunes’ Cow.” These cases have generally centered on allegations of defamation, with Nunes claiming that various reports and comments damaged his reputation. However, most of these lawsuits have been dismissed or settled out of court, with courts consistently ruling that Nunes failed to provide sufficient evidence of malice or falsehood.

Legal analysts have noted that Nunes’ legal strategy appears to align with a broader trend among some public figures who use defamation lawsuits to counter unfavorable media coverage. Such lawsuits, even if unlikely to succeed, can generate publicity and appeal to supporters who view the media as biased. In Nunes’ case, his lawsuits have often reinforced his image as a defender of conservative values against a perceived liberal media establishment.

Implications of the Ruling

The dismissal of the lawsuit against Maddow and MSNBC underscores the high bar for proving defamation in the United States, particularly for public figures. The “actual malice” standard, established by the Supreme Court, is designed to protect free speech and ensure that journalists can report on matters of public interest without fear of excessive litigation. For Maddow and MSNBC, the ruling reaffirms their ability to engage in robust commentary, even on controversial figures like Nunes.

For Nunes, the decision represents another defeat in his ongoing efforts to challenge media narratives. As CEO of Trump Media & Technology Group, Nunes has shifted his focus to building an alternative media ecosystem, one that he and his allies argue offers a counterbalance to mainstream outlets like MSNBC. However, his legal setbacks may complicate his efforts to portray himself as a victim of media bias, a narrative that has resonated with his supporter base.

Reactions to the Decision

Neither Nunes nor his legal team issued an immediate public response to the ruling. Representatives for MSNBC and Maddow also declined to comment, though the network’s legal team expressed confidence in the court’s decision during the proceedings. On social media platforms like X, reactions were polarized, with some users praising the ruling as a victory for press freedom and others criticizing it as evidence of judicial leniency toward liberal media.

The case has also reignited discussions about the role of media in political discourse. Supporters of Maddow argue that her commentary was within the bounds of journalistic inquiry, particularly given the national security implications of Derkach’s actions. Critics, however, contend that her statements were speculative and unfairly targeted Nunes without concrete evidence.

Broader Context

The lawsuit’s dismissal comes at a time of heightened scrutiny over the relationship between media, politics, and the judiciary. As public figures increasingly turn to the courts to settle disputes with journalists, cases like Nunes v. Maddow highlight the tension between free speech and reputational protection. The ruling also reflects the judiciary’s reluctance to penalize media outlets for opinions or interpretations that fall short of provable falsehoods.

For Rachel Maddow, the decision reinforces her position as one of the most prominent voices in cable news. Known for her in-depth analysis and progressive commentary, Maddow has often been a lightning rod for criticism from conservative figures. The dismissal of Nunes’ lawsuit is likely to bolster her reputation among viewers who see her as a defender of truth in the face of political attacks.

Conclusion

The federal court’s dismissal of Devin Nunes’ defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow and MSNBC marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over media accountability and free speech. By rejecting Nunes’ claims, Judge Kevin Castel reaffirmed the importance of the “actual malice” standard in protecting journalistic expression. For Nunes, the ruling is a reminder of the challenges public figures face in proving defamation, particularly when their actions are subject to public scrutiny. As the media landscape continues to evolve, cases like this will likely shape the boundaries of permissible commentary in an increasingly polarized environment.