A federal judge on Wednesday tossed out prominent Trump ally Laura Loomer’s defamation lawsuit against Bill Maher and HBO, ruling that the “Real Time” host’s joke about her constituted protected speech and not defamation.
Maher suggested during his September 13, 2024, broadcast that Loomer, a far-right activist with a direct line to President Donald Trump, “might be” in a sexual relationship with Trump.
Loomer sued the late-night comedian and HBO (which is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery, the parent company of CNN) for defamation, alleging the comment lowered her standing within Trump’s orbit and cost her a job opportunity.
In summary judgment, US District Judge James Moody Jr. dismissed the case, ruling that in the full context of the episode, any “reasonable” viewer “would have understood” that Maher was making a joke, and not a statement of fact.
In a statement to CNN, Loomer blasted the ruling as “factually and legally wrong,” arguing that Maher’s comment was “no joke” and insisting the decision was “totally dishonest and misogynistic” in nature. She vowed to appeal.
The judge found that Loomer — whom the court treated as a public figure — failed to show “actual malice,” the bar required to prove defamation under First Amendment law. Given the intense media speculation at the time around Loomer’s proximity to Trump, the judge said there was no evidence Maher knowingly made a false statement.
And even if the remark could be viewed as factual, Moody added, there is still no defamation case because Loomer failed to demonstrate harm. She did not identify anyone who believed the insinuation, the judge said, nor did she show damages to her reputation or finances.
In fact, “Loomer testified that her income increased in 2024 compared to prior years and that she continues to speak to and meet with President Trump, he continues to solicit her opinions, and she continues to receive invitations to the White House,” Moody wrote, adding that the “remaining evidence of alleged damages associated with lost job opportunities is entirely speculative.”
(Source: CNN)
Suffah Loomer
Maher suggested during his September 13, 2024, broadcast that Loomer, a far-right activist with a direct line to President Donald Trump, “might be” in a sexual relationship with Trump.
Loomer sued the late-night comedian and HBO (which is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery, the parent company of CNN) for defamation, alleging the comment lowered her standing within Trump’s orbit and cost her a job opportunity.
In summary judgment, US District Judge James Moody Jr. dismissed the case, ruling that in the full context of the episode, any “reasonable” viewer “would have understood” that Maher was making a joke, and not a statement of fact.
In a statement to CNN, Loomer blasted the ruling as “factually and legally wrong,” arguing that Maher’s comment was “no joke” and insisting the decision was “totally dishonest and misogynistic” in nature. She vowed to appeal.
The judge found that Loomer — whom the court treated as a public figure — failed to show “actual malice,” the bar required to prove defamation under First Amendment law. Given the intense media speculation at the time around Loomer’s proximity to Trump, the judge said there was no evidence Maher knowingly made a false statement.
And even if the remark could be viewed as factual, Moody added, there is still no defamation case because Loomer failed to demonstrate harm. She did not identify anyone who believed the insinuation, the judge said, nor did she show damages to her reputation or finances.
In fact, “Loomer testified that her income increased in 2024 compared to prior years and that she continues to speak to and meet with President Trump, he continues to solicit her opinions, and she continues to receive invitations to the White House,” Moody wrote, adding that the “remaining evidence of alleged damages associated with lost job opportunities is entirely speculative.”
(Source: CNN)
Suffah Loomer
Statement on Judge Moody’s ruling in my defamation lawsuit against Bill Maher 
" to each other.. that Bill Maher couldn't have acted in malice when suggesting that there was some kind of weird sexual attraction there.
