Judge shoots down long-running defamation suit against Washington Post: No 'actual malice'

For several years, the Washington Post has been fighting a civil defamation lawsuit from former Rep. Devin Nunes (R-California). And on Monday morning, July 1, Politico's Kyle Cheney reported that U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols had "ruled in favor of" the Post.

Cheney posts, "NICHOLS (who is also the single judge responsible for unraveling the Jan. 6 obstruction charges and for sending Steve Bannon to prison pending appeal) ruled for the Post in a sealed opinion last month that has now been unsealed."

The judge, appointed by former President Donald Trump, ruled that Nunes failed to show "actual malice" on the Post's part.

READ MORE: 'Paid in blood': How the loss of Supreme Court legitimacy can lead to political violence

In its unanimous 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that in defamation lawsuits, the plaintiff must show "actual malice." And Nichols applied that 60-year-old standard in his decision.

Nunes, who formerly chaired the House Intelligence Committee, is a major Trump ally. But Nichols, despite being a Trump appointee, clearly sided with the Post over Nunes in his ruling.

After leaving Congress, Nunes became CEO of Trump Media and Technology Group — the parent company of the social media platform, Truth Social.

READ MORE: SCOTUS 'staged a coup' and will resemble Russian courts if Trump wins: conservative expert