Gov. Newsom's Defamation Lawsuit Against Fox News Over "Gavin Lied About Trump's Call" Claim Can Go Forward
A Delaware judge has allowed Governor Gavin Newsom's defamation lawsuit against Fox News to proceed over broadcasts claiming he lied about a phone call with then-President Donald Trump. The court found it reasonably conceivable that Fox News's statements implied a false assertion of fact and were not protected opinion. The core dispute centers on whether Newsom falsely denied any call occurred, when the timing of the call was the actual issue.
- ▪Governor Gavin Newsom sued Fox News for defamation over segments stating 'Gavin Lied About Trump's Call' following a June 2025 phone conversation.
- ▪President Trump claimed he spoke with Newsom 'a day ago' on June 10, 2025, but the actual call occurred on June 6–7, prompting Newsom to deny any recent call.
- ▪Fox News aired statements asserting Newsom lied, without clarifying the timing of the call, which the court found could imply a false factual assertion.
- ▪Delaware Superior Court Judge Sean Lugg ruled the case can proceed, finding the statements may not be protected as opinion and could be substantially false.
- ▪The court determined that under Delaware pleading standards, Newsom's complaint survives dismissal if any conceivable set of facts would allow him to recover.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Free Speech Gov. Newsom's Defamation Lawsuit Against Fox News Over "Gavin Lied About Trump's Call" Claim Can Go Forward Eugene Volokh | 5.1.2026 2:22 PM An excerpt from Delaware Superior Court Judge Sean Lugg's 42-page opinion yesterday in Newsom v. Fox News Network, LLC: In the midst of civil unrest in Los Angeles, California, Governor Gavin C. Newsom spoke on the telephone with President Donald Trump. The call took place after 10:00 p.m. on the night of Friday, June 6, 2025 (Pacific Daylight Time) (after 1:00 a.m. on Saturday, June 7, 2025 (Eastern Daylight Time)).
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Reason.com.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Reason.com
