Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Can Candace Owen’s suit be dismissed on jurisdiction even though she has business in delaware
Executive summary
Owens has moved to dismiss the Macrons’ Delaware defamation suit arguing the state lacks personal jurisdiction over her despite her companies being incorporated there; her brief contends Delaware has no meaningful connection to her conduct, witnesses, or the alleged defamation [1] [2]. The Macrons sued in Delaware because Candace Owens LLC is a Delaware company and their complaint argues exercising jurisdiction over that entity (and relatedly over Owens) comports with fair play and Delaware law [3] [4].
1. The procedural fight: who sued whom and where
The French president Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron filed a 218–219 page defamation complaint in Delaware Superior Court naming Candace Owens and her Delaware-headquartered companies, seeking unspecified or punitive damages for alleged false claims about Mrs. Macron [5] [3]. Owens filed a motion to dismiss the Delaware suit on jurisdictional grounds, arguing the state has no connection to the parties, the statements, or the proof [2] [6].
2. Owens’ legal theory: Delaware is the wrong forum
Owens’ brief and public statements say she lives and records her podcast in Nashville and that Delaware lacks ties to her, the Macrons, relevant witnesses, or evidence — a classic “no personal jurisdiction” argument asserting that merely incorporating a business in a state does not automatically drag a non‑resident manager into its courts for unrelated acts [1] [2] [6]. Her lawyers also label the filing “quintessential libel tourism” and argue applying Delaware law could impose foreign limitations (e.g., France’s shorter deadline) that might actually bar claims — an argument raised in filings and media summaries [6] [1].
3. The Macrons’ counterargument: Delaware ties via the LLC
The Macrons’ complaint emphasizes that Candace Owens LLC is formed under Delaware law and that exercising jurisdiction over the corporation — and therefore relatedly over actions tied to it — would not offend “traditional notions of fair play” under Delaware jurisprudence [3]. Delaware filings cited in reporting stress corporate formation as a hook for jurisdictional claims and argue Owens continued use of her platforms for the contested statements supports Delaware’s authority [3].
4. Legal context: corporate formation vs. personal contacts
Delaware law and cited precedent draw a distinction between jurisdiction over a corporation (where formation can matter) and personal jurisdiction over a nonresident individual manager for acts unconnected to the corporation’s internal affairs; Owens’ brief points to authorities that personal jurisdiction is lacking when forum contacts are unrelated to the controversy [1] [7]. That mirrors U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring an “affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy” for specific jurisdiction [1].
5. What courts will weigh next
Delaware judges will likely parse: (a) whether the Macrons’ complaint ties the allegedly defamatory acts to the Delaware‑incorporated entities in a way that lawfully confers jurisdiction; and (b) whether exercising jurisdiction over Owens personally violates due process because her contacts with Delaware are unrelated to the statements at issue [1] [3]. Reported filings show both sides present concrete factual claims — Owens stressing Nashville operations and lack of Delaware ties, the Macrons stressing corporate formation and continued promotion of the allegations [1] [3].
6. Practical and strategic stakes beyond law
Owens’ motion frames the suit as “libel tourism” and warns of substantial financial and operational hardship if she must litigate in Delaware; the Macrons’ team (represented by prominent libel counsel) frames the case as a necessary remedy against global defamation and highlights corporate links to Delaware [6] [3]. Media coverage notes Owens has continued airing the allegations after the suit, raising public‑relations and damages implications regardless of the jurisdictional outcome [8] [9].
7. Limits of available reporting and what’s not yet shown
Available sources outline the competing jurisdictional briefs and the basic facts about incorporation and residency but do not provide a Delaware court ruling on the motion to dismiss, nor do they detail all factual evidence each side will present at a hearing [1] [2] [3]. They also do not include any final appellate guidance resolving whether formation alone suffices to pull a nonresident manager into Delaware for unrelated acts — the resolution will turn on how Delaware precedent is applied to the specific factual record [1] [7].
Bottom line
Whether Owens’ suit can be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds hinges on legal lines between corporate incorporation as a jurisdictional hook and the constitutional requirement that the forum have an affiliation with the underlying controversy; Owens’ filings emphasize the lack of such affiliation while the Macrons point to the Delaware corporate nexus [1] [3]. The court’s factual findings about how tied the statements are to the Delaware entities will determine the outcome — current reporting describes the dispute but does not report a final decision [2] [10].