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.
How have courts ruled on jurisdictional challenges in high-profile defamation or speech cases recently (2023–2025)?
Executive summary
Courts from 2023–2025 have repeatedly rejected attempts to expand jurisdiction in high‑profile defamation and speech matters, often dismissing suits for lack of personal jurisdiction or for failing to plead falsity/actual malice; notable examples include a 2024 dismissal of RFK Jr.’s suit for lack of personal jurisdiction (Kennedy v. Vickrey) and 2024–25 appellate decisions rejecting major political defamation claims for failure to show falsity or merit [1] [2]. At the same time, appellate and supreme courts have limited the reach of state causes of action into federal forums and signalled reluctance to upend First Amendment precedents like New York Times v. Sullivan when assessing speech‑related jurisdiction and merits questions [3] [4].
1. Courts push back on out‑of‑state plaintiffs who sue over online speech
Federal courts continue to police personal jurisdiction in internet defamation suits: a New Hampshire federal court dismissed Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s suit against a Daily Kos writer for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that online publication and residual presence on the web did not automatically create sufficient contacts in the forum state (Kennedy v. Vickrey) [1]. Practice guides and defense firms report similar wins for defendants, stressing that courts apply the “effects” analysis and require targeted contacts or a demonstrable audience in the forum before exercising specific jurisdiction [5] [6].
2. Merits and jurisdiction often collapse into the same First Amendment framework
Judges are dismissing or affirming dismissals of high‑profile claims not only on procedural jurisdictional grounds but because plaintiffs fail to plead core First Amendment elements — falsity for private‑figure claims or actual malice for public‑figure plaintiffs. Recent federal rulings have affirmed that rhetoric and opinion are not actionable and that plaintiffs must show falsity and appropriate state of mind; for example, an appellate panel upheld dismissal of Donald Trump’s defamation claim against a news outlet as “meritless,” relying on failure to prove falsity and characterizing challenged statements as opinion [2]. The Sullivan standard remains the lodestar cited by courts [3].
3. Supreme Court and appellate activity reframes standing and forum questions
The Supreme Court’s recent docket (2023 term and aftermath) and its rulings on standing and review have influenced how lower courts treat jurisdictional and pre‑merits obstacles in speech cases. The Court’s treatment of standing in digital‑speech cases and its reluctance to redo Sullivan have led lower courts to resolve many disputes by applying established First Amendment doctrines rather than expanding jurisdictional reach [4] [7]. Reporters and legal groups note the Court’s selective intervention — it has been willing to take big questions about social‑media regulation and standing but has denied petitions that sought to overhaul libel doctrine [7] [8].
4. International and state courts show divergent jurisdictional approaches
Outside the U.S., English courts have shown a strict approach to asserting jurisdiction in cross‑border disputes, demanding a “good arguable case” and substantial connection to the forum — a trend visible in several 2025 EWHC and Court of Appeal decisions (Magomedov, Al Saud, Servis‑Terminal) [9]. Meanwhile, U.S. states and legislatures are attempting to regulate speech and AI content locally, producing a patchwork that can invite forum shopping and jurisdictional fights when plaintiffs file in plaintiff‑friendly venues [10] [11].
5. AI, platforms and Section 230 complicate the forum calculus
New litigation over AI‑generated defamatory content is emerging, but courts are just beginning to confront where and how jurisdiction should attach when content is generated by or through platforms and AI systems; recent reporting notes that no major U.S. AI defamation case had reached a jury by late 2025 and that courts scrutinize whether third parties would actually believe AI outputs [12]. Simultaneously, Section 230 immunity and platform status are front‑and‑center in jurisdictional and pretrial motions as defendants argue platforms were not “publishers” of third‑party content [10].
6. Competing perspectives and hidden incentives
Defendants — particularly media outlets and platform operators — emphasize strict jurisdictional limits to avoid burdens of defending in distant courts, an incentive that aligns with Section 230 defenses and First Amendment concerns [5] [10]. Plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel counter that digital harm is cross‑jurisdictional and that plaintiffs should be able to sue where reputational injury occurs; academic voices propose federal defamation rules to avoid inconsistent state‑by‑state jurisdiction fights [11]. These competing incentives shape where cases are filed and the aggressive jurisdictional motions that follow [11].
7. What reporting does not say
Available sources do not mention any single, Supreme Court decision between 2023–2025 that fundamentally changed personal jurisdiction doctrine for online defamation — instead, classes of lower‑court dismissals and selective appellate rulings have developed the law incrementally (not found in current reporting).