Judge George Hanks Jr. Dismisses Kash Patel Defamation Suit Against Frank Figliuzzi

FBI Director Kash Patel’s latest attempt to use the courts to challenge criticism hit a setback in Texas when a federal judge dismissed his defamation lawsuit against former FBI assistant director-turned-MSNBC contributor Frank Figliuzzi.

Multiple outlets described Figliuzzi’s “Morning Joe” remark that Patel had reportedly “been visible at nightclubs far more than he has been on the seventh floor of the Hoover building,” which Patel had sued over.

CNBC

NBC News reported that U.S. District Judge George Hanks Jr. agreed with Figliuzzi’s argument that the comment was protected “rhetorical hyperbole.”

The judge wrote, “Figliuzzi’s statement, when taken in context, cannot have been perceived by a person of ordinary intelligence as stating actual facts about Patel,” and added that “a person of reasonable intelligence and learning would not have taken his statement literally.”

The Intercept framed Patel’s broader strategy as a pattern of suing to “muzzle the free press,” describing such cases as “strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP.”

NBC News reported that the ruling came two days after Patel filed a separate $250 million defamation suit against The Atlantic.

The New York Post quoted Figliuzzi’s lawyer calling the decision “a victory for press freedom and the First Amendment,” while Patel’s lawyer said the ruling would “eviscerate” the ability to treat statements as reliable facts.

While the Texas dismissal played out, Patel’s litigation momentum continued with a separate defamation case targeting The Atlantic.

NBC News said the dismissal “came a day after Patel filed a separate defamation suit against The Atlantic magazine over a story it published last week,” and that the lawsuit “seeks $250 million from the magazine.”

Deadline

The Intercept described the same Atlantic dispute as a lawsuit that “names the publication and the writer as defendants and demands $250 million in damages,” tying it to “a report published at The Atlantic about his time in office.”

In that Intercept account, the Atlantic story detailed allegations about Patel’s behavior, including that “staffers have observed that the director frequently drinks to the point of intoxication and has been unreachable behind closed doors multiple times,” at one point requiring “agents breaking down a door.”

USA Today added that Patel’s Atlantic case was prompted by reporting that raised “concerns about Patel’s alleged drinking behavior and potential national security implications,” and it said the article was initially titled “Kash Patel’s Erratic Behavior Could Cost Him His Job.”

The Hill similarly reported that Patel sued The Atlantic “for $250 million” after the outlet published “bombshell reporting” that he was “anxious about losing his job and was hard to reach following nights of excessive drinking.”

USA Today also quoted Patel’s response to the Atlantic story, saying, “The Atlantic’s story is a lie,” and it quoted Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg saying, “We stand by our reporting on Kash Patel.”

The dismissal of Patel’s defamation claim against Frank Figliuzzi turned on the judge’s view that the “nightclubs” comment could not be taken as a factual assertion.

“FBI Director Kash Patel just lost one defamation case right after he filed another one”

MS NOW

NBC News reported that U.S. District Judge George Hanks Jr. agreed with Figliuzzi’s lawyers that the remark was “a sarcastic, hyperbolic remark that receives protection from defamation liability.”

The judge’s reasoning was quoted directly in multiple outlets, including the language that “a person of reasonable intelligence and learning would not have taken his statement literally: that Dir. Patel has actually spent more hours physically in a nightclub than he has spent physically in his office building.”

The Hill likewise quoted Hanks’s conclusion that Patel “failed to allege a viable defamation claim against” Figliuzzi, and it repeated the judge’s explanation that the statement was “rhetorical hyperbole.”

USA Today similarly said Hanks ruled the remark was “exaggerated commentary — not a literal or defamatory claim,” and it cited the same “person of reasonable intelligence and learning” line.

Poynter’s account added that MS NOW issued an on-air correction with a host saying Figliuzzi’s comment was “a misstatement. We have not verified that claim.”

The New York Post reported that Figliuzzi’s lawyer called the ruling “a victory for press freedom and the First Amendment,” while Patel’s lawyer said it would “eviscerate” others’ ability to treat statements as reliable facts.

Beyond the Figliuzzi ruling, the reporting placed Patel’s court strategy inside a wider pattern of legal confrontations with media and critics.

The Intercept described SLAPP as “a tool of the powerful” and said “Most immediately, SLAPP allows plaintiffs the potential to muzzle their critics,” adding that plaintiffs can “bleed out defendants by dragging on court cases for as long as possible.”

NBC News

It also said “Federal action is is sorely needed” because “their application in federal courts remains unsettled,” and it named lawmakers including “Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.”

The Intercept further connected Patel to other litigation, saying he has “an ongoing 2019 lawsuit against Politico” and “another defamation action, against former FBI official Frank Figliuzzi for comments on MS NOW, was dismissed on Tuesday.”

Poynter added a separate thread involving the New York Times, saying “Patel’s FBI investigated Times reporter Elizabeth Williamson” after she wrote about Patel providing his girlfriend with “security and transportation using bureau resources.”

Poynter quoted Times editor Joseph Kahn criticizing the FBI’s actions, saying, “The FBI’s attempt to criminalize routine reporting is a blatant violation of Elizabeth’s First Amendment rights.”

The same Poynter report also described MS NOW’s personnel changes, including that “Shawna Thomas” was joining as “new political director,” and it included her statement about helping “inform an audience that craves context and meaning.”

Reactions to the dismissal and the broader legal fight were sharply divided between those who framed the ruling as protection for journalism and those who argued it could weaken accountability.

“A Houston federal judge dismissed FBI Director Kash Patel’s defamation lawsuit against MS NOW contributor Frank Figliuzzi over his claim that Patel was in “nightclubs far more than he has been” at the agency’s headquarters”

New York Post

NBC News quoted Figliuzzi’s lawyer, Marc Fuller, hailing the decision as a “victory for press freedom and the First Amendment,” while noting the judge denied Figliuzzi’s request for attorney fees and other costs.

New York Post

The New York Post echoed the “victory for press freedom and the First Amendment” framing and added Patel’s response through his lawyer Jesse Binnall, who said, “that holding effectively eviscerates anyone’s — including The Atlantic’s — ability to treat his statements as reliable facts.”

USA Today described the judge’s reasoning as rejecting Patel’s attempt to treat the remark as a literal claim, and it said neither the FBI nor Patel’s attorney immediately responded to requests for comment.

Poynter’s report also included a correction by MS NOW after the “nightclubs” comment, with a host saying, “We have not verified that claim.”

Poynter reported that Times editor Joseph Kahn called the FBI’s investigation of Elizabeth Williamson “unconstitutional” and “wrong,” tying the legal pressure to First Amendment concerns.

The Hill and USA Today both described Patel’s ongoing litigation, including that he sued The Atlantic for $250 million and that the Atlantic story was titled “The FBI Director Is MIA.”