Federal judge throws out Kash Patel’s $10 million defamation lawsuit against blogger

A federal judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by FBI Director Kash Patel against blogger Jim Stewartson, ruling that the Nevada court never had personal jurisdiction over Stewartson.

Chief Judge Andrew Gordon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued the ruling on July 25, agreeing with Stewartson’s argument that he lacked meaningful ties to Nevada and should not have been sued there.

Stewartson later posted on X that Gordon ruled, “I do not have personal jurisdiction over Stewartson, so I grant his motion to dismiss.”

The decision vacates the $250,000 default judgment Patel had previously won and, for now, ends a legal battle that began more than three years ago.

Origins of the lawsuit 

Patel filed the defamation lawsuit in Nevada federal court in June 2023, before President Donald Trump appointed him FBI director. He sought $10 million in damages over a series of posts in which Stewartson, who publishes the MindWar newsletter on Substack, called him a “Kremlin asset” and alleged he had tried to “overthrow the government” and helped plan the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In court filings, Patel cited several X posts he said were defamatory, including Stewartson accusing him of “sedition,” claiming he had “helped ensure the Capitol was undefended” ahead of the riot and calling him a “blatantly incompetent c***” who should be in custody.

Stewartson did not respond to the lawsuit for months. According to CNBC, Patel’s attorneys completed service in late October 2023 after someone at Stewartson’s California home accepted the complaint. Stewartson still did not appear in court, prompting Patel’s legal team to seek a default judgment in March 2025.

The August 2025 default judgment 

Gordon granted the motion on August 5, 2025, ruling that Stewartson’s statements were defamatory and caused presumed damages.

“Falsely stating as fact that a public figure ‘attempted to overthrow the government,’ planned the January 6 insurrection, was a ‘Kremlin asset,’ and paid people to ‘lie to [C]ongress’ … inflicts real injuries, personally and professionally,” Gordon wrote.

The judge also emphasized that not all of Stewartson’s statements were actionable. “Factual criticism of and opinions about, public figures are protected speech and must be tolerated,” he wrote, adding that punitive damages were warranted “in part to deter Stewartson and others from engaging in defamation.”

Patel and the Kash Foundation were awarded a combined $250,000: $100,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages for Patel, plus $25,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000 in punitive damages for the foundation, which Gordon said had lost at least seven donors because of the posts.

Stewartson fights back 

Stewartson later moved to overturn the default judgment and dismiss the lawsuit, arguing he had not been properly served and lacked the “minimum contacts” with Nevada required for the court to exercise jurisdiction.

In April, Gordon partially denied those motions but ordered both sides to brief whether the Nevada court had personal jurisdiction over Stewartson, a California resident.

That briefing led to Gordon’s July 25 ruling dismissing the case. Addressing Patel’s argument that Stewartson’s online activity established jurisdiction, Gordon wrote, “The plaintiffs’ allegations arise out of Stewartson’s allegedly defamatory posts on X and Substack, which are about the plaintiffs, who are Nevadan residents. They allege that Stewartson’s X followers include Nevada residents and that he tagged Patel, a Nevadan resident, but they do not allege that Stewartson interacted with or tagged his Nevadan followers in relation to the allegedly defamatory posts.”

He continued, “Tagging Patel, who happens to be a Nevadan resident, in posts that have nothing to do with Nevada activities or entities does not target a Nevadan audience and therefore does not create a contact between Stewartson and Nevada.”

Stewartson celebrates 

Stewartson celebrated the ruling with a series of posts on X, continuing to mock Patel while celebrating the ruling.

“PSA: Now that my case is settled, you are free to refer to Kash Patel as a ‘c***,’ a ‘googly-eyed Kremlin b****,’ and a ‘traitor’ without fear of legal repercussions! You’re welcome,” Stewartson wrote.

Responding to one of Patel’s posts, Stewartson added, “You were also going after bloggers. But you can’t even do that right,” before warning, “we’re not done here.”

In an interview with The New York Times, before the final dismissal, Stewartson said he found it “hysterical” that Patel’s lawsuit quoted his insults, including “c***,” in court filings.