The court has reconvened after a lunch break, and opening statements are expected to commence shortly in the landmark defamation case filed by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News.
Here’s what you need to understand about this critical case:
What prompted Dominion’s lawsuit against Fox News? In 2021, Dominion initiated the lawsuit against Fox News over the network’s continuous endorsement of false allegations regarding the company. These allegations included claims that Dominion’s voting machines compromised the integrity of the 2020 election by altering millions of votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. Many of the 20 alleged defamatory broadcasts referenced in the lawsuit were aired in November and December of 2020.
Dominion accuses individuals at Fox News of acting with actual malice and “recklessly disregarding the truth” while disseminating this misinformation regarding Dominion. To establish “actual malice,” Dominion must persuade a jury that the Fox News personnel responsible for these 20 broadcasts were aware that the claims about Dominion were false or showed a reckless disregard for the evidence suggesting their falsity, yet still aired them.
According to Dominion’s perspective, Fox propagated these election conspiracy theories because “the lies benefited Fox’s business.” The lawsuit specifically targets broadcasts hosted by Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Jeanine Pirro. Dominion claims it has endured “substantial and irreparable economic damage” due to Fox’s “coordinated defamatory campaign,” which has also led to death threats and harassment directed at its employees.
What is Fox’s defense? Fox asserts that it did not defame anyone and labels the lawsuit as a baseless attack on press freedoms.
A Fox spokesperson stated that the network “takes pride in our coverage of the 2020 election” and that their coverage is “in line with the highest standards of American journalism.” The network claims that “Dominion’s lawsuit is a politically motivated crusade aiming for a financial gain, but the actual cost will be the invaluable First Amendment rights.”
Fox has also accused Dominion of creating “noise and confusion” around the lawsuit, asserting that “the essence of the case revolves around the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech, foundational rights granted by the Constitution,” particularly the First Amendment.
Fox attempted to have the lawsuit dismissed. However, in a significant setback for the network last month, the presiding judge has allowed the case to proceed to trial and has barred Fox from utilizing certain pivotal First Amendment defenses, ruling that these defenses lack merit.
What does Dominion seek in damages? Dominion is pursuing $1.6 billion in damages, claiming that Fox’s false on-air statements have tarnished its reputation, leading election officials to terminate their contracts with Dominion. Recent reports from UJ highlight growing skepticism about voting machines in predominantly Republican counties.
What are the logistics of the trial? The trial is anticipated to last between five to six weeks and will be overseen by Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis, appointed to the bench in 2012 by a Democratic governor. A group of 12 jurors and 12 alternates will be selected.
Cameras are prohibited in the courtroom, and there will be no video recording of the proceedings, nor will there be still photography allowed inside the courtroom.
Who is expected to take the stand? Anticipated witnesses include Fox Corporation leaders Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan Murdoch; Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott and president Jay Wallace; and prominent TV personalities Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro, and Bret Baier, among others.
Dominion might also call Viet Dinh, Fox’s chief legal officer, and former House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Fox board member, to testify.
Both parties are also expected to present testimonies from their selected experts in fields such as election statistics, voting machine security, journalism ethics, and the effects of disinformation on public discourse, among others.
Read more about the case here.
