The New York Times Takes Legal Action Against a Far-Right Group
The New York Times has launched a new legal battle against the far-right organization known as 1st Amendment Praetorian (1AP), following the dismissal of the group’s $100 million lawsuit. In a recent filing in New York, the Times is seeking reimbursement for legal costs, attorney fees, and other expenses under New York Civil Rights Law. According to the complaint, the newspaper incurred at least $50,000 in legal fees while defending against what it describes as a “meritless” lawsuit.
This latest legal action is based on anti-SLAPP provisions, which are designed to protect free speech and prevent frivolous lawsuits targeting the press. A spokesperson for the Times stated that the court’s decision to dismiss the case with prejudice confirmed that the claims against the paper were without merit. They emphasized that the anti-SLAPP law requires the opposing party to cover the legal costs incurred during the defense.
Background of the Lawsuit
The conflict between the Times and 1AP began in January 2023, when the organization filed a lawsuit in response to several articles published by the newspaper. These reports focused on the scrutiny surrounding 1AP in the wake of the January 6 Capitol attack. The articles referenced the House committee investigating the event, which had issued a subpoena to 1AP and its founder, Robert Patrick Lewis, in November 2021.
The subpoena required 1AP to produce documents related to events leading up to and occurring on January 6, including materials about the group’s security operations for allies of former President Donald Trump. It also compelled Lewis to appear for a deposition before the committee.
In January 2022, the Times published an article detailing the close ties between 1AP and Trump allies who sought to undermine confidence in the 2020 election results. The article reported that members of 1AP had helped funnel data on alleged election fraud to lawyers challenging the vote count. Additionally, the group was said to have provided security for figures like Michael Flynn and supported efforts to gather open-source intelligence on election fraud claims.
The Legal Battle Escalates
Following the subpoena, 1AP filed a $100 million lawsuit against the Times and reporter Alan Feuer. The group claimed that the articles and social media posts defamed them by implying that they “stormed the Capitol” on January 6. However, the Times argued that none of the social media posts mentioned 1AP, and the articles did not state that the group stormed the Capitol.
In response, 1AP amended its complaint, alleging that the Times made 24 materially false statements about the group. Despite this, the court ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice in March of this year. The ruling found that 1AP failed to demonstrate that the Times published any defamatory statements with actual malice or provided sufficient specificity in its claims. Many of the statements cited by 1AP were not “of or concerning” the group, and the organization could not prove they were false.
Rebranding and Legal Strategy
At the time of the lawsuit, Rolling Stone suggested that 1AP was using litigation as a strategy to distance itself from other right-wing groups associated with the Capitol attack. Instead, the organization aimed to rebrand itself as a “civil liberties group” and “non-partisan” entity.
The magazine noted that the lawsuits filed by 1AP were part of a pattern of high-dollar defamation suits intended to clear the group’s reputation. This irony was highlighted by the fact that 1AP presents itself as a defender of First Amendment rights, yet it is suing entities that have used their freedom of the press to raise concerns about the group.
The Times Demands Legal Costs
Citing New York’s anti-SLAPP law, the Times is now demanding that 1AP cover the legal costs incurred during the dismissed case. The newspaper’s complaint states that it spent over $50,000 in legal fees and costs to defend against a lawsuit that had no basis in law or fact.
The court’s ruling supports this claim, stating that 1AP initiated and continued the lawsuit without a substantial basis in fact or law. The Times’ legal action reflects a broader trend of media outlets pushing back against baseless lawsuits, especially as political figures continue to use the courts to target journalists and news organizations.
Broader Implications
The Times’ response to 1AP comes amid a growing pattern of legal challenges from political figures against the press. For example, former President Donald Trump has recently filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch, as well as secured a $16 million settlement from Paramount in a case involving a CBS News interview with Kamala Harris.
These developments underscore the ongoing tension between media organizations and those who seek to challenge their reporting through legal means. As the Times continues to defend its work, the outcome of this case may set a precedent for how courts handle similar disputes in the future.