Issa v. Applegate
242 Cal. Rptr. 3d 809
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Darrell Issa (incumbent U.S. Representative, public figure) sued Doug Applegate, his campaign committee, and Applegate's campaign manager for libel over two 2016 campaign TV ads (Sept. 20 and Oct. 4) that criticized Issa's ethics and 9/11-related votes.
- The Sept. 20 ad displayed a faux newspaper layout with The New York Times masthead and text implying headlines like "Rep. Issa Gamed the system to line his own pockets" and that he "secured millions of dollars in Congress earmarks for roadwork to the many properties he owns."
- The Oct. 4 ad used 9/11 imagery and a voiceover summarizing Issa's floor remarks as "he'd done enough for something that was simply a plane crash," suggesting he minimized 9/11 and opposed 9/11 first-responder care.
- Respondents moved under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (§ 425.16). The trial court granted the motion, finding the ads were protected political speech and Issa failed to show a probability of prevailing (falsity and actual malice not established).
- Issa appealed; the Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding the challenged statements were not provably false (or were substantially true/fair summaries) and political speech receives broad protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Issa) | Defendant's Argument (Applegate) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Applicability of anti‑SLAPP | Ads are defamatory; speech protection shouldn't shield false factual claims | Ads are political speech on a public issue protected by §425.16 | Claim arises from protected activity; anti‑SLAPP applies |
| 2. Falsity of Sept. 20 headline implication ("gamed the system") | The ad implied The New York Times said "Issa gamed the system to line his own pockets" which is false | The phrase is rhetorical/political hyperbole and a fair summary of the NYT article; not provably false | Not provably false; substantially true as a gist/summary of the NYT article |
| 3. Falsity of Sept. 20 earmark/steering assertions | Statements that Issa "secured millions" / "steered millions" to properties are false (challenges specific article facts) | NYT article supports the gist; corrections were minor and do not undermine substance | Statements (and any implied NYT quote) are substantially true; Issa failed to show falsity |
| 4. Falsity of Oct. 4 9/11 quotation ("simply a plane crash") | Ad doctored/misquoted Issa to imply he belittled 9/11 and opposed responders | Ad is a fair summary and contextual condensation of Issa's floor remarks; any minor wording change did not materially alter meaning | Not provably false; no material change in meaning—summary permissible in political ad |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (establishes actual malice/First Amendment protection for criticism of public officials)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (political speech merits the highest First Amendment protection)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (minor alterations in quoted words are not actionable unless they materially change meaning)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (two‑step anti‑SLAPP framework and plaintiff burden to show probability of prevailing)
- Beilenson v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.App.4th 944 (political discourse requires wide latitude for hyperbole and invective)
- Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (elements of defamation and treatment of opinion vs. provable fact)