A federal judge has dismissed FBI Director Kash Patel’s defamation lawsuit against a California blogger, ruling that Nevada courts lack jurisdiction over the case despite Patel winning $200,000 in a previous default judgment.

Jurisdiction Dispute Overturns Default Victory

Federal Judge Andrew Gordon threw out the case against Jim Stewartson, who had called Patel a “Kremlin asset” and accused him of planning the January 6 Capitol events. Patel initially won a default judgment totaling $250,000 last year after Stewartson failed to respond to the lawsuit. The blogger later claimed he never received proper notification and only learned about the judgment through a CNBC article, prompting his motion to set aside the ruling.

Gordon agreed with Stewartson’s constitutional challenge, determining that the blogger lacked sufficient connection to Nevada to establish personal jurisdiction. The judge wrote that tagging Patel, a Nevada resident, in social media posts does not automatically create jurisdiction in Nevada courts. Stewartson’s statements targeted the broader American political landscape rather than a specifically Nevadan audience, according to the ruling.

Social Media Posts Fuel Legal Battle

Patel’s legal team pointed to Stewartson’s social media activity as evidence of jurisdictional awareness. The blogger wrote on X that Patel would “have to come back to Nevada for the trial” where he would explain calling the FBI director a derogatory term. However, Judge Gordon rejected this argument, noting the post came after the default judgment and reflected Stewartson’s intent to challenge that ruling rather than consent to Nevada jurisdiction.

The lawsuit alleged Stewartson spread “pernicious lies” including claims that Patel attempted to overthrow the government, committed sedition, and that his foundation paid individuals to lie to Congress. Patel argued these accusations served Stewartson’s financial interests through his podcast and paid Substack subscriptions. Patel’s attorneys have not responded to inquiries about potential appeals.

Pattern Of Legal Action

This dismissal represents one of several defamation cases filed by the FBI director. Patel currently faces a separate legal battle with The Atlantic magazine over reporting about his alleged excessive drinking. The publication filed a dismissal motion this week, characterizing Patel’s lawsuit as an attack on constitutional principles by a government official who should tolerate robust public criticism. A Washington judge will determine the fate of that case in upcoming proceedings.