A federal appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of a defamation lawsuit brought by former U.S. Rep. Devin G. Nunes against NBCUniversal Media, LLC over an MSNBC report by host Rachel Maddow, holding that journalists are protected when relying in good faith on reporting from reliable news organizations.
In a summary order issued Oct. 15, 2026, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a lower court judgment in favor of NBCUniversal. The panel—comprising Circuit Judges Guido Calabresi, William J. Nardini, and Eunice C. Lee—concluded that Nunes failed to show that Maddow or executive producer Cory Gnazzo acted with actual malice when reporting on how Nunes handled a package sent by a sanctioned Russian agent.
The dispute centered on a March 18, 2021 segment of The Rachel Maddow Show concerning the “Derkach Package,” a parcel received in December 2019 from Andrii Derkach, a Russian agent linked to foreign efforts to influence the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Nunes, who was then a congressman and ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, was named as a recipient. During the broadcast, Maddow stated that Nunes “refused to hand it over to the FBI, which is what you should do if you get something from somebody that is sanctioned by the U.S. government as a Russian agent.”
Nunes submitted evidence in court demonstrating that Maddow’s statement was false. Deposition testimony from a former intelligence committee staff member established that committee staff received the package, placed it in a secure location, and turned it over to the FBI approximately two days later.
However, District Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to NBCUniversal on August 4, 2025, finding no evidence that Maddow or Gnazzo acted with actual malice. The district court determined that the journalists made the statement in reliance on a July 23, 2020 article published by Politico. That article noted that Grassley and Graham denied receiving the material while Mulvaney and Nunes declined repeated requests for comment, adding that “One person familiar with the matter said the information was not turned over to the FBI.”
Appealing under docket number 25-2125-cv, Nunes’s counsel—Jason C. Greaves, with Jesse R. Binnall on the brief—urged the Second Circuit to hold that the Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was incorrectly decided and that the First Amendment does not require public figures to show actual malice. Nunes also argued that Maddow’s broadcast departed from the Politico report and that a jury could infer actual malice from her phrasing.
The Second Circuit rejected both arguments. Writing for the panel, the court clarified that intermediate appellate courts lack authority to disregard binding Supreme Court precedent establishing the actual malice requirement for public figures. Moreover, the panel noted that even if federal constitutional doctrine did not apply, New York’s anti-SLAPP statute, Section 76-a of the New York Civil Rights Law, independently enforces the actual malice standard in state-law defamation claims litigated under federal diversity jurisdiction.
On the factual record, the panel agreed that Maddow’s on-air statement was a natural reading of the Politico report and that good-faith reliance on a reputable news source defeats a finding of reckless disregard.
“Literal accuracy is not a prerequisite: if we are to enjoy the blessings of a robust and unintimidated press, we must provide immunity from defamation suits where the journalist believes, reasonably and in good faith, that his report accurately conveys the charges made,” the panel held, quoting established circuit precedent.
NBCUniversal was represented on appeal by Elizabeth A. McNamara, with Jeremy Chase on the brief.
Why it matters
This analysis considers the legal and operational ramifications of the Second Circuit’s ruling. The decision highlights the sturdy shield that federal constitutional doctrine and state anti-SLAPP laws provide to media outlets covering national security and political controversies. By confirming that reporters may summarize and rely upon investigative work by peer news outlets without incurring defamation liability, the court protects standard press gathering and reporting routines from being treated as evidence of actual malice.
The ruling also demonstrates the structural limits facing public figures who seek to challenge standard First Amendment protections in the federal appellate courts. Because lower federal courts remain strictly bound by established Supreme Court precedent, litigants attempting to overturn the actual malice standard face insurmountable hurdles below the high court itself. Furthermore, the Second Circuit’s emphasis on New York’s anti-SLAPP statute underscores that state legislation provides an independent statutory shield for press commentary, insulating media organizations even in federal diversity cases where state substantive law governs.
With the Second Circuit affirming the dismissal of the lawsuit, Nunes’s remaining procedural options are limited to seeking en banc rehearing before the full Second Circuit or filing a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, where individual justices have previously signaled interest in reconsidering public-figure libel standards.
Source: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit opinion in Nunes v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC
