Texas Attorneys Put Civil Rights Nonprofits on Notice About Defaming Right-Wing Conservatives

Dallas-area law firms secured a federal court ruling in favor of a disabled Navy veteran and QAnon conspiracy promoter’s defamation suit against the Anti-Defamation League.

Warren Norred of Norred Law, an intellectual property and bankruptcy attorney, said he opted to represent the plaintiff, John Sabal, out of a conviction that the ADL and organizations like it have become too reckless with how they refer to and brand perceived bad actors.

“The Anti-Defamation League … (is) one of several which have left their moorings and are nothing more than anti-First Amendment bullies, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center and Media Matters,” Norred said.

“All these organizations were, perhaps at one time, honest brokers of information, but now use slash-and-burn name-calling to shut people down, as the ADL attempts to do with its list of alleged ‘anti-Semitic criminals,'” he added.

Norred’s co-counsel is Paul MacNeal Davis, a Frisco attorney who lost an in-house counsel job with an insurance company shortly after recording himself protesting outside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

In December, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas partially denied the ADL’s motion for summary judgment in a memorandum opinion and order. Sabal’s claim for injurious falsehoods was dismissed because O’Connor found no evidence for compensatory damages relating to Sabal’s finances.

However, O’Connor preserved defamation claims on allegations that the ADL had published defamatory statements in three publications: Glossary of Extremism and Hate, The QAnon Backgrounder and the ADL’s Lone Star Report on extremism in Texas.

The ADL is represented by Dallas-area Jackson Walker attorneys Robert P. Latham and Trevor Paul and by Davis Wright Tremaine of New York.

In the QAnon Backgrounder, the ADL identifies Sabal as a QAnon influencer who is “known to peddle antisemitic beliefs.” In the Glossary of Extremism and Hate, the ADL refers to Sabal as “an example of an extremist leader who propagates ideas that can inspire others to engage in criminal activity.”

In its defense, the ADL argued the challenged statements are either substantially true or are protected opinion. The ADL also argued Sabal is a limited-purpose public figure and therefore must show the statements were published with malice.

Addressing the limited-purpose public figure defense, O’Connor found no evidence of a public controversy issue; therefore, he said, that argument fails, concluding that “his defamation claims are subject to the negligence standard for private individual defamation claims.”

Neither could O’Connor accept the non-actionable opinion defense, because in all three publications the challenged statements “are written as to imply assertions of verifiable fact.”

On the defense of truth, the ADL noted that Sabal advocated criminal and violent conduct because he called for “open rebellion to remove the president” and for military tribunals to try civilians. In addition, the ADL claimed without evidence that Sabal was at the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and committed violent criminal conduct.

In response, O’Connor noted that Sabal clarified his “open rebellion” post, stating he was calling for “nonviolent mutiny.”

“Second, advocating for military tribunals … is not criminal,” O’Connor said, adding that he could not consider Sabal’s alleged presence at the Jan. 6 riot without independent corroborating evidence.

After the ruling, Norred said, “The left’s war on free speech must be rejected, and cultural critics should be able to offer their opinions without fear of being called heinous names.”