In a significant blow to the credibility of left-leaning media giant MSNBC, a federal judge has ruled that a defamation case against the network can move forward.
The lawsuit, filed by Dr. Mahendra Amin, accuses the network and its high-profile hosts, including Rachel Maddow and Nicole Wallace, of spreading “verifiably false” statements about him in connection with inflammatory and unfounded accusations.
The controversy began in 2020 when Dr. Amin, an obstetrician-gynecologist at the Irwin County Detention Center in Georgia, became the subject of sensationalist reports alleging he had performed unnecessary hysterectomies on female migrants held at the facility. The explosive claims originated from a whistleblower nurse at the detention center and quickly gained traction in mainstream media. However, these allegations were never substantiated, and despite the lack of evidence, MSNBC ran with the story, labeling Dr. Amin as the “uterus collector” on national television.
NBC correspondents Jacob Soboroff and Julia Ainsley reportedly investigated the whistleblower’s claims but found no corroborating evidence. Nevertheless, NBCUniversal’s standards department allowed the story to be published and aired across MSNBC’s platforms. The network’s decision to proceed with the story, despite the shaky foundation of the accusations, is at the heart of Dr. Amin’s defamation suit.
U.S. District Judge Lisa Godbey Wood of the Southern District of Georgia meticulously reviewed the case and issued a damning summary in June. “NBC investigated the whistleblower letter’s accusations; that investigation did not corroborate the accusations and even undermined some; NBC republished the letter’s accusations anyway,” Judge Wood wrote, highlighting the network’s reckless disregard for the truth.
Nicole Wallace, one of MSNBC’s most prominent voices, is a primary target of the lawsuit. During a broadcast, she breathlessly reported, “We are following breaking news today. It’s about an alarming new whistleblower complaint that alleges, quote, high numbers of female detainees, detained immigrants, at an ICE detention center in Georgia received questionable hysterectomies while in ICE custody.” This statement, among others, is now at the center of the legal battle.
Rachel Maddow, another key figure in the lawsuit, reportedly had initial reservations about the veracity of the claims against Dr. Amin. Despite her skepticism, she chose to run the story on *The Rachel Maddow Show*—a decision that may now prove costly for both her and the network. Dr. Amin’s attempts to have NBC retract the false statements were unsuccessful, and further investigations, including one by the U.S. Senate, failed to uncover any evidence supporting the allegations.
Judge Wood’s ruling makes it clear: “There were no mass hysterectomies or high numbers of hysterectomies at the facility,” she stated unequivocally. In fact, the judge noted that Dr. Amin had performed only two hysterectomies on detainees from the facility—hardly the scandalous figure MSNBC promoted.
The court also emphasized that even though NBC did not directly make these accusations but merely republished the whistleblower’s claims, it is still potentially liable for defamation. “If accusations against a plaintiff are based entirely on hearsay, the fact that the charges made were based upon hearsay in no manner relieves the defendant of liability,” the judge affirmed.
As this case moves forward, it serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of reckless reporting and the power of the legal system to hold even the most prominent media organizations accountable for their actions. For Dr. Amin, this ruling is a step toward clearing his name after being unjustly vilified by a media outlet that, in its rush to push a narrative, apparently forgot its duty to the truth.
