No Defamation Liability for False Claim Regarding Congressional Witness’s Lawyer Being Partially Funded by Trump PAC

In the recent case of Bobulinski v. Tarlov, Judge Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York addressed the defamation claims brought by Anthony Bobulinski against Jessica Tarlov, a Fox News commentator. The case arises from Bobulinski’s allegations concerning Hunter Biden, with whom he was formerly associated as a business partner. Bobulinski claimed that Hunter misused funds and profited from his father, Joe Biden’s, vice presidency. After publicly revealing these concerns in 2020 and incurring significant legal expenses without financial support from Trump-affiliated entities, Bobulinski testified in front of the House Oversight Committee about his experiences. Tarlov later commented on Bobulinski’s legal fees controversially, alleging that they were paid by a Trump PAC, sparking his lawsuit against her for defamation.

The legal issues in this case revolved around Tarlov’s March 20 statement, where she incorrectly asserted that Bobulinski’s attorney fees were underwritten by a Trump-affiliated PAC. In response to Bobulinski’s demands for retraction and apology, Tarlov issued a follow-up statement clarifying her remarks, which Bobulinski deemed insufficient. The court ultimately ruled that Tarlov’s statements did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The ruling highlighted that not all false statements are defamatory; Tarlov’s remarks, when contextualized within Bobulinski’s political activities, did not drudge up public scorn or disgrace against him as he claimed. The court cited that the connection to a prominent political figure like Donald Trump could not easily provoke hatred, distrust, or ridicule from the average listener.

Judge Oetken’s opinion emphasized Bobulinski’s own decisions to engage with Trump and speak publicly against the Bidens, suggesting that his relationship with the former President may mitigate any harm his reputation suffered due to Tarlov’s comments. The court reasoned that requiring an average listener’s interpretation would not likely lead to increased disdain or disbelief towards Bobulinski merely because of a misstatement about PAC funding. Additionally, it was noted that legal fees being paid by an outside entity—common in political and legal interactions—would not subject Bobulinski to public condemnation.

The court also considered the broader implications of the alleged defamation, observing that Bobulinski’s interpretation of Tarlov’s comments as suggesting he had been “bought and paid for” by a special interest lacked substantiation. The requirement for a rigorous standard in defamation by implication was not met, as Bobulinski failed to clearly articulate what inference he believed Tarlov’s statement intended or endorsed. The court maintained that her comment could have been interpreted in various non-defamatory contexts, emphasizing the malleability of meaning within political discourse.

Furthermore, the court concluded that Bobulinski’s attorney, Stefan Passantino, did not have a viable defamation claim either, as Tarlov’s remark regarding his legal representation did not demean his professional reputation as a distinguished lawyer associated with Republican political figures in the past. Passantino acknowledged accepting payments from the PAC, which detracted from any argument that Tarlov’s statement reflected negatively on his character. As with Bobulinski, the connection to a well-known political organization did not inherently compromise the average listener’s perception of Passantino’s credibility.

In conclusion, the court’s ruling underscores the high threshold required for establishing defamation in political contexts, particularly regarding statements made by commentators about public figures. The implications of Bobulinski’s claims illustrate the complex interplay between political affiliation, public commentary, and reputational harm. The opinion also noted that New York’s anti-SLAPP statute, which offers protective measures against strategic lawsuits against public participation, is applicable in federal court, providing further context that could influence future cases in this arena. Ultimately, this decision may reflect not only on the parties involved but also on the larger landscape of political discourse and legal accountability.