The Virginia Defamation Law Blog
On January 21, 2025, the Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a defamation case brought by Kashyap Patel, a former official in the Trump administration, against CNN. The case is Patel v. Cable News Network, Inc. (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2025) and it provides a compelling exploration of defamation law and, more specifically, the stringent “actual malice” standard applied to defamation claims brought by public figures. The opinion highlights the challenges public officials face in pursuing defamation claims and underscores the robust protections granted to free speech under both the United States and Virginia constitutions.
Patel’s claims focused on two articles (available here and here) published in late 2020. The articles suggested that Patel was involved in efforts to spread conspiracy theories about then-candidate Joe Biden and to coerce Ukrainian officials into announcing an investigation into Biden and his son, Hunter. Patel claimed the statements were false, defamatory, and published with actual malice, driven by CNN’s bias and ill will toward him. The Fairfax County Circuit Court dismissed his case on demurrer, ruling that Patel, as a public figure, had failed to sufficiently plead that CNN acted with actual malice. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling, providing a detailed analysis of what constitutes actual malice and why Patel’s complaint fell short.
“Actual malice,” for purposes of evaluating a defamation claim, is not actually “malice” as that term is usually used in non-legal contexts. Rather, it refers to the defendant publisher’s state of mind when publishing the statements at issue. In defamation cases involving public figures, the plaintiff must prove actual malice by showing that the defendant either knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth. (See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)). The standard is subjective, meaning it focuses on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of publication. A failure to investigate, carelessness, or even ordinary negligence does not suffice. Instead, the plaintiff must present evidence that the defendant had a “high degree of awareness of [the statement’s] probable falsity” or “entertained serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication” (See St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968); Jordan v. Kollman, 269 Va. 569, 580 
(2005)).
To convince the court he had properly alleged actual malice, Patel made three central arguments: (1) CNN ignored reliable information demonstrating that the challenged statements were false; (2) CNN harbored extreme professional and personal animus, bias, spite and ill-will towards him; and (3) CNN knew the statements were false or, at a minimum, purposefully avoided the truth. The Court of Appeals shot down each of these arguments one by one.
1. CNN’s Use of Sources
Patel alleged that CNN relied on the House Intelligence Committee’s Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report (the “Ukraine Report“), which he claimed contained unfounded allegations against him, and ignored evidence to the contrary, including his own denials. The Court, however, found that reliance on the Ukraine Report–a public document with extensive documentation and witness testimony–did not demonstrate actual malice. The Court emphasized that a media organization’s reliance on such sources generally negates claims of recklessness, particularly when the source is official and widely regarded as credible.
2. Allegations of Bias and Ill Will
Patel also alleged that CNN harbored ill will toward him, citing the network’s prior reporting on his role in drafting the January 2018 memorandum to the Intelligence Committee’s Republican members that claimed Hillary Clinton’s campaign was involved in arranging the “Steele dossier” desiged to emphasize Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. While ill will or bias may explain a defendant’s motivation, the Court reiterated that these factors do not equate to actual malice. (See Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 666-67 (1989) (noting is well-established that the actual malice standard is not satisfied merely “through a showing of ill will or ‘malice’ in the ordinary sense of the term,” or that the “defendant published the defamatory material…to increase its profits.”)) As the U.S. Supreme Court has noted, defamation protections are meant to encourage vigorous debate on public issues, even when that debate includes harsh criticism. (See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964)).
3. Institutional Malice
Patel argued that CNN acted with actual malice by publishing statements it knew to be false or by recklessly disregarding their falsity. As the court pointed out, CNN is a corporation and corporations don’t have their own state of mind. The court opined that Patel’s complaint did not sufficiently “bring home” the actual malice standard to specific individuals at CNN. Defamation law requires proof that the individuals responsible for publishing the statements—such as reporters or editors—knew the statements were false or recklessly disregarded their truth. “CNN is a media corporation,” the court wrote. “The corporation, being an artificial person created by law, can have no separate intent of its own apart from those who direct its affairs.” (See Loftin & Woodard, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1206, 1244 (5th Cir. 1978)). The court noted that the actual malice standard is a subjective one that requires facts demonstrating the specific state of mind of a person within a media corporation at the time of publication. Patel’s allegations were directed broadly at CNN as an organization, without identifying specific conduct or knowledge attributable to the authors of the articles.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to sustain the demurrer. “Patel was obliged to plead facts that would permit a reasonable inference that a specific individual knew the challenged statements were false or subjectively believed they were probably false and published them anyway,” the court concluded. He failed to do that, so the court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case.
The Patel decision underscores the high bar public figures must clear to sustain defamation claims. Courts remain vigilant in ensuring that the actual malice standard protects free expression and prevents defamation suits from chilling public discourse. For public officials like Patel, the case highlights the need for detailed and specific allegations at the pleading stage. Simply alleging bias or hostility by a media organization is insufficient. Plaintiffs must show how individual decision-makers knowingly or recklessly disregarded the truth.