Civil and Human Rights

Bad News for Alex Jones: Defamation Case Over Charlottesville Theories Gets Green Light

A team from Georgetown Law’s Civil Rights Clinic represents the plaintiff.

Legal troubles mounted Friday for conspiracy theorist and Infowars host Alex Jones after a federal judge in Virginia ruled a defamation lawsuit can proceed against him and other defendants over the Charlottesville rallies that led to the death of protester Heather Heyer.

Jones is a co-defendant, along with his media company Infowars LLC and others, including former Florida Rep. Allen West, in a suit filed by plaintiff Brennan M. Gilmore, whose video of Heyer’s death went viral.

Gilmore recorded and posted a video of James Alex Fields Jr. plowing his car into a crowd protesting the “Unite the Right” rally in Virginia, which had attracted white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups. Fields later pleaded guilty to 29 federal hate crimes for the August 2017 attack that killed Heyer, a paralegal with The Miller Law Group, and injured 36 others.

But Gilmore alleges Jones and the other defendants led an online campaign accusing him of being a “deep state” operative who helped orchestrate and spread propaganda about the incident. He filed a federal lawsuit suit in the Western District of Virginia alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the Virginia court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and could not exercise personal jurisdiction over them.

Senior U.S. District Judge Norman K. Moon disagreed. He found the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over all the defendants, except for West. Moon dismissed West because Gilmore failed to prove he had a hand in distributing an article targeting a Virginia audience.

Andrew Mendrala and Aderson Francois [of Georgetown Law’s Civil Rights Clinic] and Brianne Gorod and Elizabeth Wydra [of the Constitutional Accountability Center] represented Gilmore.

“Victims of vile conspiracy theories should take comfort in Judge Moon’s ruling that Brennan Gilmore’s defamation suit against InfoWars must proceed,” supervising attorney Mendrala said in a statement Friday. “Today’s decision shows that the law will protect victims of baseless lies by holding people like Alex Jones accountable for the harm they cause.”

Defense counsel included Thomas Albro and Evan Mayo of Tremblay & Smith; and Baker & Hostetler attorneys Andrew Grossman, Elizabeth Scully, Richard Raile and Mark Bailen. Bailen’s automated email message indicated he was out of office Friday, while the other attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for comment by deadline

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
May 13, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.