A federal court has ruled in favor of Andrew Weissmann in a defamation case brought by lawyer Stefan Passantino. The court's decision, made on September 21, 2026, dismissed Passantino's claims that Weissmann defamed him through a social media post. This ruling is significant as it highlights the complexities of defamation law, particularly involving public figures and the standards of proof required.
Stefan Passantino, a lawyer with over thirty years of experience, filed a lawsuit against Andrew Weissmann, a former prosecutor and current political commentator, alleging defamation and injurious falsehood. The case arose from a social media post made by Weissmann in September 2023, where he referred to Passantino as someone who “coached [a witness appearing before Congress] to lie.” This statement was made in the context of Passantino’s representation of Cassidy Hutchinson, a key witness in the House of Representatives' investigation into the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The dispute centers on whether Weissmann's statement was false and whether it harmed Passantino's reputation. The case was filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia under Civil Action No. 2023-2780. Passantino claimed that the post severely damaged his reputation and business, as he had never faced accusations of unethical behavior prior to this incident.
In court, Weissmann sought judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Passantino's claims did not meet the legal standards for defamation. The court, led by Judge Loren L. AliKhan, reviewed the facts presented in Passantino's complaint and the context surrounding Weissmann's statement. The judge noted that the court must take the facts alleged in the complaint as true but also considered the broader context of the statements made.
The court ruled that Passantino failed to demonstrate that Weissmann acted with negligence, which is necessary for a defamation claim. According to the opinion, “the court concludes that Mr. Passantino has failed to plead the requisite level of fault.” The ruling emphasized that a plaintiff must show that the defendant did not exercise ordinary care in determining the truth of a statement before publishing it.
Furthermore, the court addressed whether Passantino was a public figure, which would require him to meet a higher standard of proof known as “actual malice.” The judge noted that even if Passantino were considered a private figure, he still did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim. The court found that Weissmann's statement was backed by the public record, including testimonies from Hutchinson that suggested Passantino had instructed her on how to respond to questions during her depositions.
In its conclusion, the court stated, “Mr. Passantino has failed to plead any facts to show that Mr. Weissmann was on notice of the falsity of his statement.” This ruling effectively dismissed Passantino's claims and underscored the challenges faced by individuals seeking to prove defamation, especially when the statements in question are made in a public and politically charged context.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the parties involved. It sets a precedent regarding the standards of proof required in defamation cases, particularly those involving public figures and statements made in the course of political discourse. The decision may discourage similar claims in the future, as it reinforces the notion that defendants in defamation cases can rely on public records and statements made in official capacities.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether Passantino will appeal the court's decision. The legal landscape surrounding defamation claims, especially in politically sensitive cases, continues to evolve. This ruling may influence how future cases are approached, particularly in terms of the evidence required to support claims of defamation.