'Not enough to proceed': Fox News again wins dismissal of 'conclusory' defamation lawsuit filed by man at the center of Jan. 6 'false flag' conspiracy theory

Fox News received bully quality connected Friday arsenic a Delaware national tribunal nixed a defamation suit implicit comments made by Tucker Carlson astir an Arizona man's alleged engagement successful the Jan. 6 riots.

James Ray Epps, successful a bid of progressively escalating ineligible maneuvers, accused the network's now-former talking caput of coating him arsenic an cause provocateur who "helped stage-manage" the abortive insurrection connected behalf of the national government.

The plaintiff's ineligible crusade stalled retired successful November 2024 erstwhile a national territory tribunal ruled successful favour of a Fox News question to dismiss. Epps got a 2nd wound astatine the pome a fewer weeks aboriginal by asking the tribunal for support to re-plead his lawsuit with an amended complaint.

Now, that 2nd wound has turned sour arsenic U.S. District Judge Jennifer Hall, a Joe Biden appointee, erstwhile again ruled successful Fox News' favor.

"I antecedently granted Fox's question to disregard the archetypal Complaint and granted Plaintiff James Ray Epps, Sr., permission to amend," the memorandum opinion reads. "I reason that the [amended complaint] fails to authorities a plausible assertion and should beryllium dismissed."

While motions signifier pursuing the resubmission of the twice-dismissed suit was initially swift and fierce successful the case, the tribunal has been mulling the issues for good implicit a year.

In early January 2025, Fox News filed its motion to dismiss. Epps past fired backmost with his answering brief. Later that aforesaid month, Fox News filed its reply successful enactment of its motion to dismiss. A proceeding and 1 further filing by Epps followed done the outpouring and summertime of 2025. Through it all, the web maintained the plaintiff simply had not alleged capable to resuscitate his case.

The large quality was whether oregon not the web acted with "actual malice." Or, much specifically, whether the amended ailment contains the due operation of facts and investigation to prolong an statement that Fox News acted with existent malice.

Actual malice is the astir exacting and hardest-to-prove modular in defamation law. The modular typically becomes operative erstwhile the idiosyncratic claiming to beryllium defamed is simply a nationalist figure.

"Plaintiff fails to supply immoderate ground to salvage the Amended Complaint," Fox News argued. "He does not place immoderate caller factual allegations to change the holding that helium has failed to plead existent malice."

While the tribunal did not wholly hold with that framing of the amended complaint, Epps' 2nd effort did small to alteration the calculus.

"The [amended complaint] contains a fig of caller allegations that Epps says are applicable to existent malice," the sentiment goes on. "I enactment astatine the outset that galore of the caller allegations are conclusory statements and/or ineligible assertions that the Court request not recognition erstwhile assessing whether the ailment states a plausible claim."

To that end, Epps brought attraction to a definite magnitude of "skepticism expressed by erstwhile Fox employees" astir "certain things that were said on" Carlson's then-running speech show, the tribunal explains.

More Law&Crime coverage: 'Direct grounds of existent malice': Man astatine halfway of Jan. 6 conspiracy mentation says helium has a monolithic magnitude of 'substance and details' showing Fox News defamed him

"Plaintiff asks the Court to infer that Carlson and/or Fox knew that Carlson's statements were mendacious due to the fact that [those employees] thought Carlson's stories were disconnected base," the sentiment continues.

But, the tribunal says, those claims bash not truly talk to existent malice – and highlights 2 "fundamental problems" here.

"[T]he [amended complaint] does not allege immoderate facts suggesting a plausible inference that [those employees] had crushed to cognize that Carlson's statements astir Epps were inaccurate," Hall goes on. "That is not astonishing due to the fact that whether Epps was successful information acting arsenic a national authorities informant connected January 6 would apt person been—at the clip the challenged statements were made—a confidential portion of accusation known lone to authorities officials."

The tribunal elaborates here:

The AC pleads nary facts plausibly suggesting that immoderate of the erstwhile Fox News employees had entree to that information. Rather, Epps's existent malice allegations are chiefly based connected the opinions of individuals who had nary much crushed than Carlson to cognize whether Epps was a national informant. That is not capable to proceed.

The 2nd problem, the tribunal notes, is that Epps' revamped suit contains "no facts plausibly suggesting" the employees "were liable for the contented of" Carlson's since-shelved program.

The justice notes that 1 of the employees, then-and-since-fired producer, Abby Grossberg, was a unit member, but says that Epps' pleadings really suggest "that she had nary work for the show's contented and that her suggestions were ignored." This, the tribunal jabs, is "the opposite" of what the plaintiff claims.

The tribunal goes connected to accidental determination is "no suggestion" 2 different employees cited by Epps "had immoderate involvement" successful the show's content.

"Nor does the [amended complaint] allege facts plausibly suggesting that [those employees] shared their concerns with Carlson oregon others liable for [the show's] contented earlier publication," the justice says.

Overall, Hall recovered Epps' allegations "insufficient."

From the opinion, astatine length:

Taken together, the allegations bash not springiness emergence to a plausible inference that Carlson oregon anyone other liable for [the show] subjectively knew that their statements were mendacious oregon that they possessed a reckless disregard for the truth. The statements were not truthful objectively implausible oregon internally inconsistent that they formed uncertainty connected Carlson's (or Fox's) authorities of mind. [The different employees] were not liable for the statements and had nary mode to cognize whether the statements were false.

"Defendant Fox News Network, LLC's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim volition beryllium GRANTED," the sentiment concludes.