Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Fourth Circuit Denies Alex Jones’s Appeal: Gilmore Lawsuit Proceeds to Discovery

Brennan Gilmore was subjected to false and defamatory conspiracy theories by InfoWars’ Alex Jones and others in the wake of the August 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville.

WASHINGTON – Late this afternoon, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued orders denying the request by Alex Jones and others that they be permitted to bring an immediate appeal of a lower court ruling that denied their motions to dismiss Brennan Gilmore’s defamation lawsuit against them. Gilmore was the victim of false and defamatory conspiracy theories put forward by InfoWars’ Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists. Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC), Georgetown Law’s Civil Rights Clinic, and Andrew Mendrala of Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll represent Gilmore in his lawsuit.

CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod said, “We’re gratified to see the Fourth Circuit’s orders today, denying the defendants’ requests for an immediate appeal. We look forward to returning to the District Court and starting discovery soon.”

#

Resources:

Case page for Gilmore v. Jones, et al.: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/gilmore-v-jones-et-al/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 26, 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.