How have courts ruled so far on motions to dismiss or summary judgment in these cases against candace owens?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Courts have so far produced mixed procedural outcomes in litigation involving Candace Owens: earlier defamation-related suits she brought were dismissed or not reviewed by higher courts, and in the high‑profile Macron v. Owens matter the parties have engaged in motions to dismiss and jurisdictional fights rather than dispositive rulings on the merits [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows Owens’ lawyers have moved to dismiss the Macrons’ Delaware case as improper forum shopping, while the Macrons have pursued amended complaints and investigative work — but available sources do not report a final summary judgment or merits decision resolving defamation liability in that case [2] [3] [4].
1. Early Owens suits: dismissals and the Supreme Court’s pass
Candace Owens has a prior history of litigation that courts have not sustained to her advantage: a 2020s suit she filed over “fact checks” and COVID‑19 coverage was dismissed and the Supreme Court declined to take up one of her appeals, effectively leaving lower‑court dismissals in place [1] [5]. Those rulings show courts have been willing to dismiss defamation or interference claims when plaintiffs fail to meet pleading standards or appellate thresholds [1].
2. Macron v. Owens: a sprawling, cross‑jurisdictional battle
When Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron filed a 219‑page defamation complaint in Delaware in July 2025, they alleged a multi‑year, profit‑driven “campaign of global humiliation” and named Owens plus her Delaware entities [6] [7]. The suit tracks repeated retraction demands the Macrons say they sent and says Owens continued to promote the claim that Brigitte was born male — conduct they argue shows actual malice, the high bar for public‑figure defamation [8] [7].
3. Owens’ procedural response: motion to dismiss and forum‑shopping claims
Owens’ lawyers responded with a motion to dismiss arguing the Delaware filing is improper because the claims do not sufficiently relate to her Delaware‑incorporated businesses — framing the suit as “quintessential libel tourism” and seeking dismissal or transfer on forum grounds [2] [3]. This is a classic early defensive move aimed at knocking the case out on jurisdictional or venue grounds rather than litigating the substance of the alleged falsehoods [3].
4. Plaintiffs’ countermoves: amended complaint and U.S. investigation hires
The Macrons did not stand still. They expanded and amended their complaint — later filings grew substantially in length and detail — and retained U.S. investigators to document Owens’ conduct and trace the alleged campaign, signaling a willingness to litigate in U.S. courts rather than quietly resolve the dispute in France [3] [4]. Their teams emphasize documentary and photographic evidence they say will be produced in U.S. proceedings [2].
5. What courts have decided so far: procedural skirmishes, not merits
Available reporting to date documents motions to dismiss, amended complaints, jurisdictional arguments, and strategic withdrawals by plaintiffs in one local report — but not a federal or state court decision granting summary judgment or a merits trial ruling for either side in the Delaware action [2] [9] [3]. The public record shows procedural motion practice and forum disputes rather than an adjudication of truth, falsity, or damages in the Macrons’ case [2] [3].
6. Competing perspectives and legal stakes
The Macrons’ team frames the litigation as defensive redress against a profit‑driven campaign of defamation and seeks to prevent continued harm and set the record straight [7] [10]. Owens and her lawyers portray the filing as forum‑shopping and defensive overreach that could subject her business to undue hardship if litigated in Delaware [2] [3]. Legal experts in coverage say the suit tests how U.S. courts handle international figures suing U.S. influencers for online conspiracies — but commentators differ on whether venue or First Amendment doctrines will be decisive [6] [11].
7. What to watch next: jurisdiction rulings, discovery, and potential withdrawal
Key upcoming milestones for resolving the case are court rulings on Owens’ motions to dismiss or transfer, the Macrons’ ability to sustain amended counts after any jurisdictional rulings, the scope of discovery (including the investigators’ findings), and whether plaintiffs seek to litigate in France instead — or withdraw — as one report suggested could happen for tactical reasons [2] [4] [9]. Absent reported dispositive rulings, the dispute remains in the procedural phase [2] [3].
Limitations and sources
This analysis relies solely on the assembled coverage: Fortune, TIME, BBC, AP, The Guardian, Axios, The Bulwark, Eurweb and related reporting compiled here [6] [8] [2] [1] [11] [10] [12] [4]. Available sources do not report any final summary‑judgment decisions for the Macron v. Owens Delaware litigation nor a merits trial verdict in that action as of the cited articles [2] [3].