Judge Dismisses Kash Patel's Suit Against Blogger Over Jurisdiction

Judge Dismisses Kash Patel's Suit Against Blogger Over Jurisdiction

A federal judge in Nevada dismissed FBI Director Kash Patel's defamation suit against blogger Jim Stewartson and vacated a $250,000 default judgment, ruling the court never had personal jurisdiction over Stewartson because his posts targeted a national audience, not Nevada.

Information last verified on July 30, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Jurisdiction scope: This ruling comes from a federal district court in Nevada, but the reasoning rests on the general U.S. constitutional standard for personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants. That due-process framework applies nationwide, not just in Nevada, so the analysis below is relevant to online-speech defamation disputes in any state.

What Happened

Kash Patel and the Kash Foundation, a nonprofit Patel founded, sued Jim Stewartson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada in June 2023, before Patel became FBI Director. The complaint pointed to posts Stewartson made on X (formerly Twitter) and Substack between 2021 and 2023, alleging Stewartson falsely claimed Patel tried to overthrow the government, helped plan the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, was guilty of sedition, acted as a "Kremlin asset," and paid people to lie to Congress.

Stewartson did not respond to the lawsuit. Chief U.S. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon entered a default judgment against him in August 2025, awarding Patel $200,000 and the Kash Foundation $50,000, a combined $250,000. Stewartson later moved to undo that judgment, arguing that Patel's team never properly served him and that he had no meaningful ties to Nevada, where he does not live.

Judge Gordon ordered additional briefing on jurisdiction before ruling. In an order entered July 25, 2026, he granted both of Stewartson's motions, setting aside the default judgment and dismissing the case outright. The court found that Patel's claims did not arise from any contact Stewartson had with Nevada, so the federal court there lacked authority to hear the case; Stewartson's only tie to the state was attending a UFC event in 2016, and his posts about Patel were not directed at a Nevada audience simply because Patel resides there. The order was not entirely favorable to Stewartson, however: Judge Gordon wrote that he appeared to know about the lawsuit, may have tried to avoid service of process, mocked the plaintiffs online, and relied on his own mistaken belief about what counted as valid legal service.

What the Law Actually Says

Federal courts can only hear a case against a defendant if the court has personal jurisdiction, meaning constitutional authority over that person. For a defendant who does not live in the forum state, the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause requires "minimum contacts" with that state, and the claims generally must arise out of those contacts. Courts call this "purposeful availment": a defendant has to have deliberately reached into the forum state, not simply had an effect felt there.

For intentional torts like defamation, courts often apply the "effects test" from Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), in which the Supreme Court held that Florida-based writers could be sued in California because their article specifically targeted a California entertainer and drew on California sources. The key word is "expressly": the forum state has to be the actual focus of the defendant's conduct, not just the place where the plaintiff feels the sting of it.

Judge Gordon's ruling applies that framework to online speech: posting commentary on platforms like X or Substack that reaches a national audience is not, on its own, "expressly aimed" at whatever state a target of the criticism happens to live in. A plaintiff who wants to sue an out-of-state online critic in their own home state generally has to show the posts specifically targeted that state, not merely that the plaintiff was named and felt harmed at home. Our overviews of the elements a defamation plaintiff must prove and suing someone for defamation both cover jurisdiction as a threshold issue, separate from whether a statement is actually defamatory.

A judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is generally void, and courts can set it aside on that basis even after entry, which is how the default judgment here unraveled. Because Patel is a public figure and now a federal official, our guide to defamation claims involving public figures explains the added hurdles, like proving actual malice, that would apply if the claims were ever refiled in a court with jurisdiction. Nevada's own defamation standards, summarized in our Nevada defamation law overview, never came into play here since the case was dismissed before reaching the merits.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

This is a jurisdiction ruling, not a decision on whether Stewartson's statements about Patel were true, false, or defamatory. Judge Gordon never reached that question. The decision instead reinforces a boundary that matters as more defamation disputes arise from social media: a plaintiff's own residence is not, by itself, enough to drag an online critic into court there. Something about the defendant's conduct has to point at that state specifically.

That distinction carries practical weight for anyone whose commentary reaches people nationwide: criticism aimed at a public figure or a national controversy, without more, does not automatically expose the speaker to suit wherever the subject happens to live. The case also shows how consequential a default judgment can be. Stewartson faced a $250,000 judgment for nearly a year before the jurisdictional defect was resolved in his favor, a reminder that ignoring a lawsuit rarely improves a defendant's position even when the underlying jurisdictional argument might ultimately succeed.

How This Affects You

If you post commentary or criticism online that reaches a broad, non-targeted audience, this case illustrates where you generally can and cannot be sued over it. A person named or criticized in your posts typically cannot sue you for defamation in their home state merely because they live there and read what you wrote. For a court in that state to have jurisdiction over you, your posts generally need to have specifically targeted that state, its residents, or events tied to it.

This cuts both ways: posts that do specifically target a state's audience or local events can create jurisdiction there even if you never set foot in it. Jurisdiction is also only a threshold question. If a court does have authority to hear a defamation claim, the underlying standards for what counts as defamatory, and the added protections that apply when the plaintiff is a public figure, still apply in full. Never ignore being served with a lawsuit on the theory that a court lacks jurisdiction over you; that determination is for the court to make, and unwinding a default judgment later can cost significant time and money, as this case shows. Anyone facing or considering a defamation claim should talk to a licensed attorney about how these rules apply to their specific facts.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers a federal court ruling on personal jurisdiction, reflects sources verified as of July 30, 2026, and is not a substitute for advice from a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.

---

Last updated: 2026-07-30. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-07-30.