In a ruling that could have widespread ramifications for media law and First Amendment protections, U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken dismissed a $30 million defamation lawsuit filed by Tony Bobulinski against Fox News co-host Jessica Tarlov. The lawsuit stemmed from a comment Tarlov made during a January 2024 broadcast of The Five, and its dismissal has set a significant precedent for future defamation cases in the media landscape.
Judge Oetken’s decision is the first to apply New York’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute in a federal court, and it’s a win for journalists and commentators in the face of politically motivated defamation suits. The court not only dismissed Bobulinski’s claims but also ordered him to pay Tarlov’s legal fees, which is mandated by New York’s anti-SLAPP law. This ruling signals a critical shift in how courts may address lawsuits designed to stifle public discourse and media reporting.
The Case: Tarlov’s Comment and Bobulinski’s Lawsuit
The lawsuit was sparked by a comment made by Jessica Tarlov during a discussion on Fox News’ The Five about Tony Bobulinski’s testimony before Congress regarding Hunter Biden’s business dealings. Tarlov stated that Bobulinski’s legal fees had been paid by a Trump Super PAC. Bobulinski, who has become a prominent figure in Republican-led investigations into the Biden family, immediately contested this statement and demanded an on-air retraction and apology.
Despite Tarlov’s subsequent clarification, in which she acknowledged that the payments were made to the law firm representing Bobulinski, not Bobulinski directly, the defamation suit was filed. Bobulinski, through his attorney Jesse Binnall, claimed that Tarlov’s remark harmed his reputation and professional standing, particularly with regards to his credibility as a witness.
Bobulinski sought $30 million in damages, claiming that Tarlov’s comment implied that his testimony had been bought by a Trump-aligned political entity, thus damaging his credibility and professional relationships. The lawsuit was framed under the premise that the statement was defamatory per se, meaning it was inherently damaging to Bobulinski’s reputation, and did not require proof of specific harm.
The Court’s Decision: Dismissal and Attorney’s Fees
Judge Oetken’s ruling was decisive in favor of Tarlov and Fox News. The judge granted Tarlov’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, noting that Bobulinski failed to meet the high bar required to sustain a defamation claim, especially as a public figure. One of the critical points in the court’s reasoning was the lack of evidence that Tarlov’s statement was defamatory per se. The court found that the statement did not specifically harm Bobulinski’s professional reputation, as it did not accuse him of criminal activity or other conduct that would be disqualifying in his profession.
The court also addressed Bobulinski’s allegations of actual malice. To win a defamation suit, public figures must prove that the statement was made with actual malice—meaning the defendant either knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth. Judge Oetken noted that Tarlov’s prompt clarification, made the day after the original comment, undermined the claim of actual malice, as it demonstrated her willingness to correct any potential misunderstanding.
