Mohamed Mohamed, Individually and on Behalf of A.M., a Minor v. Center for Security Policy, Jim Hanson and Ben Shapiro
554 S.W.3d 767
Tex. App.2018Background
- A.M., a 13-year-old Muslim student, brought a homemade alarm clock to school (Sept. 2015); he was arrested, charges later dropped, and he received a three-day school suspension.
- The incident received national media attention; the family (via Mohamed) held a press conference and A.M. made multiple national appearances.
- Jim Hanson (Center for Security Policy) and Ben Shapiro publicly described the incident as a "staged" PR stunt, "hoax," or "setup" on national TV shows weeks after the events.
- Mohamed (individually and on behalf of A.M.) sued Hanson, CSP, and Shapiro for defamation and defamation per se; defendants moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA / anti‑SLAPP).
- The trial court granted the TCPA motions to dismiss and awarded defendants attorney’s fees; Mohamed appealed the dismissal and the denial of his motion to reconsider the fee award.
- The court of appeals affirmed: it held the TCPA applied, concluded Mohamed (a limited‑purpose public figure) failed to present clear and specific evidence of actual malice, and upheld the fee award denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the TCPA applies and supports dismissal | Mohamed did not dispute TCPA coverage (focus on merits) | TCPA applies because statements were communications on a matter of public concern | TCPA applied; threshold not contested by plaintiff |
| Prima facie defamation – actual malice (limited‑purpose public figure) | Mohamed: defendants knew or recklessly disregarded falsity; publicly available facts showed no hoax, so statements were malicious | Hanson/Shapiro: statements were opinions/reasonable inferences based on sources, expertise, and publicly available information; they believed them true | Held for defendants: Mohamed failed to present clear and specific evidence of actual malice |
| Defamation per se | Mohamed: statements accused them of crimes, dishonesty, and Islamist motives, qualifying as defamation per se | Defendants: same defenses as to defamation (opinions, no malice) | Dismissed: because actual malice not shown, defamation per se claim fails |
| Attorney’s fees award / reconsideration | Mohamed: defendants’ counsel (American Freedom Law Center) provided pro bono representation, so no fees were "incurred" under TCPA | Defendants: submitted affidavits and billing showing non‑contingent fees were incurred and billed; no pro bono showing | Held for defendants: trial court did not abuse discretion; record showed fees were incurred and award proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Serafine v. Blunt, 466 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. App.—Austin 2015) (describing TCPA as an anti‑SLAPP statute)
- In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (TCPA burden shifting and requirement of "clear and specific evidence")
- Hersh v. Tatum, 526 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. 2017) (definition of protected communication under TCPA)
- WFAA‑TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. 1998) (framework for determining limited‑purpose public figure and public controversy)
- Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) (actual malice standard and proof by circumstantial evidence)
- Lane v. Phares, 544 S.W.3d 881 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018) (public controversy and actual malice discussion)
- Hancock v. Variyam, 400 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. 2013) (defamation per se and required fault standard)
- KTRK Television, Inc. v. Robinson, 409 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (categories of defamation per se)