menu_open Columnists
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close

Gov. Newsom's Defamation Lawsuit Against Fox News Over "Gavin Lied About Trump's Call" Claim Can Go Forward

9 0
01.05.2026

The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

About The Volokh Conspiracy Editorial Independence Who we are Books Volokh Daily Email Archives Search DMCA RSS

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)). The two did not speak again before President Trump, at a Tuesday, June 10, 2025, Oval Office press conference, was asked when he last spoke with Governor Newsom; President Trump responded that he and Governor Newsom spoke "[a] day ago."

Soon thereafter, Governor Newsom posted on X that "[t]here was no call." President Trump then provided Fox News Network ("FNN") reporters a "phone log" evidencing the Friday night / Saturday morning call he had with Governor Newsom. On this information, FNN published—through nationally televised reporting overlaid by chyron—that "Gavin Lied About Trump's Call." …

The court allowed Newsom's defamation case to go forward:

Delaware's pleading standards at the motion to dismiss stage are minimal…. A complaint is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under [Delaware] Rule 12(b)(6) "[if] a plaintiff may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under the complaint." …

[1.] It is reasonably conceivable that FNN knew the statements were false at the time of making them.

FNN contends that the "'gist' or 'sting' of the suggestion that Newsom lied was substantially true," because "[t]he word 'lie' certainly encompasses Newsom's misleading tweet categorically denying he had a call with the President." "Substantial truth," FNN asserts, "turns on what Newsom actually said, not........

© Reason.com