A federal judge has thrown outLaura Loomer's defamation lawsuitagainst Bill Maher and HBO, ruling that on-air jokes suggesting she was having a sexual affair with DonaldTrumpwere protected speech, not actionable statements of fact.
US District Judge James S. Moody Jr., sitting in the Middle District of Florida,granted summary judgmentin favour of Maher and HBO on 22 April 2026, ending the case across all counts before it could reach a jury.
Loomer, a prominent far-right activist with direct access to President Trump, had filedthe suitin November 2024, claiming Maher's remarks on his HBO programme 'Real Time' cost her a job opportunity and lowered her standing within Trump's inner circle. Within hours of the ruling, Loomer posted on X calling it 'totally dishonest and misogynistic' and vowed to appeal.
The controversy traces back to the 13 September 2024 episode of'Real Time with Bill Maher', broadcast at a moment when social media was already awash in speculation about Loomer's closeness to Trump. Maher told his audience: 'I think maybe Laura Loomer's in an arranged relationship to affect the election because she's very close to Trump. She's 31, looks like his type.' He then added that he thought she 'might be' the answer to an old comedic bit he had run asking who Trump was sleeping with, since, he said, 'it's not nobody. He's been a dog for too long, and it's not Melania.'
A second episode, broadcast on 20 September 2024, doubled down with a segment titled '24 Things You Don't Know About Laura Loomer.' In it, Maher described Loomer as 'the new groupie in Trump's circle' and attributed a series of satirical quotes to her, including: 'My biggest fear is immigrants taking my job as a right-wing hatemonger.' Loomer argued in hercomplaintthat both episodes amounted to Maher 'falsely and maliciously accusing Ms. Loomer of having committed adultery with Donald Trump,' a married man, causing reputational and financial harm.
The lawsuit, filed on 18 November 2024 as case number 5:24-cv-00625 in the Middle District of Florida, named both Maher and HBO as defendants. Loomer's complaint alleged she was 'severely harmed and damaged financially and in other ways in her profession and business as an investigative journalist' and that because of Maher's claims she did not receive a position in the Trump administration, costing her 'substantial financial compensation and other harm.'
In his 18-page order, Judge Moody found Loomer's claim collapsed on three independent grounds: falsity, actual malice, and damages. On the first, he wrote that the context of the episode was decisive. 'The delivery of the episode, by a well-known comedian, in the context of a late-night comedy television series centred around jokes, signalled to viewers that this was not a factual statement about Loomer,' theruling states. 'Based on the full context of the Episode and the series, a reasonable Real Time viewer would have understood Maher was making a joke, and not a statement of fact,' he added, noting the segment 'was punctuated with laughter and applause throughout.'
On the question of actual malice, a bar that public figures must clear under US First Amendment law, Moody found the record 'bereft of any evidence.' Maher testified in deposition that he 'had no reason to doubt' a Trump-Loomer affair, 'considering President Trump's reported prior alleged affairs, the reported closeness between President Trump and Plaintiff and Plaintiff's own commentary about President Trump.'
The judge treated this finding as cutting decisively against any suggestion that Maher knowingly broadcast something he believed to be false. Loomer's own lawsuit acknowledged that she and Maher's team were aware of the widespread 'media frenzy' surrounding her travel with Trump before the episode aired.
Damages presented the third and perhaps most awkward obstacle for Loomer's case. Theruling notesthat she 'did not identify a single individual who believed that she was sleeping with President Trump because of the episode or a single relationship that was damaged as a result.' She offered no expert testimony on reputational harm and submitted no income statements showing a decline.
Source: International Business Times UK
