A federal appeals court threw out a jury verdict against conservative activist James O'Keefe over undercover videos that exposed Democratic operatives allegedly plotting to incite violence at Trump rallies, a ruling O'Keefe called a vindication for the First Amendment.
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Friday that a 2022 federal jury's $130,000 damages award against O'Keefe and former Project Veritas undercover reporter Alison Maass violated the First Amendment. The jury had sided with Democratic consultant Robert Creamer and his organization, Democracy Partners, on claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and wiretapping stemming from Project Veritas's "Rigging the Election" video series.
Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, wrote the opinion. Judge Harry Edwards, a Carter appointee, joined her. Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, dissented in part, but even he did not call for upholding the full damages award.
The ruling cut to a question that matters well beyond this single case: Can a jury punish journalists for publishing a story the public had a right to see?
Henderson, as the Washington Examiner reported, laid out the stakes plainly in her written opinion:
"The principal question in this appeal is whether the jury's damages award violated the First Amendment by punishing the defendants for publishing a news story. We conclude that it did. The separate issue is whether, under D.C. law, one of the media defendants became the fiduciary of her own news target by tricking him into hiring her as an unpaid intern. We conclude that she did not."
The court acknowledged that Maass, who had posed as an unpaid intern at Democracy Partners to gain access, obtained footage through deception. The panel agreed those specific clips were gathered fraudulently and were not themselves protected by the First Amendment. But that finding did not sink the ruling. The court concluded the overall recording mostly relied on "lawfully obtained" footage captured by other undercover Project Veritas reporters, and the damages award punished the act of publishing, not the act of infiltrating.
That distinction matters. The panel drew a line between how footage was gathered and whether the government can impose financial penalties on journalists for putting that footage in front of the public. On the second question, the court said no.
Judge Wilkins broke with Henderson and Edwards, but not entirely. He argued the panel should "affirm the jury's finding of liability for fraudulent misrepresentation and remit the damages award to a nominal amount", essentially agreeing that $130,000 was too much, while maintaining that Maass's deception warranted at least a symbolic legal consequence. The majority disagreed and wiped the damages entirely.
The partial dissent underscores how narrow the disagreement was. No member of the panel endorsed the original jury verdict as it stood. The fight was over whether to leave a token penalty on the books or strip the judgment clean. Henderson and Edwards chose the latter.
Conservative media figures have long warned that lawsuits targeting undercover journalism serve as a tool to chill investigative reporting. This ruling gives that argument real legal footing. It also arrives at a moment when federal authorities have pursued accountability against prominent left-leaning organizations on separate legal grounds, signaling a broader shift in how institutions once considered untouchable face scrutiny.
The "Rigging the Election" video series, published by Project Veritas ahead of the 2016 presidential contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, alleged that Democratic operatives connected to Democracy Partners had sought to incite violence at Trump campaign rallies. The footage showed conversations with Creamer and others that Project Veritas presented as evidence of coordinated disruption efforts.
The fallout was swift. Creamer, a Democratic consultant and husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), stepped back from his election work after the video's impact spread through mainstream election coverage and reached the presidential debate stage. Democracy Partners then sued O'Keefe and Maass, arguing the undercover operation amounted to fraud and illegal wiretapping.
A federal jury in Washington, D.C., agreed in 2022, awarding $130,000 in damages. O'Keefe and Maass appealed, arguing the verdict punished constitutionally protected journalism. That appeal produced Friday's ruling.
The case unfolded over nearly a decade, from the original 2016 videos through the 2022 jury trial and now the appellate reversal. For O'Keefe, who founded Project Veritas and later departed as CEO, the legal fight outlasted his tenure at the organization he built. Questions about election integrity and alleged manipulation of the democratic process have only intensified in the years since the original footage aired.
O'Keefe did not wait long to respond. In a statement, he said:
"Today, my faith in the future of journalism and in our courts is restored."
He expanded on the ruling's significance in a post on X, writing that the case "has profound impact on the First Amendment and undercover journalism at large. The right of an undercover journalist to misrepresent themselves in order to bring you the truth."
Creamer's legal team struck a different tone. An attorney representing Creamer and Democracy Partners told Politico the plaintiffs were "disappointed in the ruling and do not believe the appeal was correctly decided." The attorney added they are "evaluating next steps", language that leaves open the possibility of seeking review by the full D.C. Circuit or petitioning the Supreme Court.
Whether Creamer's side pursues further appeals remains to be seen. But the ruling as it stands removes the financial penalty that had hung over O'Keefe and Maass for years and establishes a precedent in the D.C. Circuit that damages awards cannot function as punishment for publishing newsworthy undercover footage, even when portions of that footage were obtained through deception.
The decision lands in a broader environment where conservative figures and institutions have pushed back against legal and bureaucratic efforts to constrain their work. Trump himself has faced persistent security and political threats, including an Iranian assassination plot flagged by Western intelligence during a recent overseas visit, and has continued to assert American interests on the world stage, including demanding that Israel and Iran halt strikes during a volatile stretch of Middle East escalation.
Undercover journalism has a long history in American reporting. From network television exposés of meatpacking plants to hidden-camera investigations of nursing homes, reporters have used deception to reveal wrongdoing that would otherwise stay hidden. But the legal landscape has grown hostile. Several states have passed so-called "ag-gag" laws restricting undercover recording, and civil lawsuits have become a favored weapon for targets who want to make an example of the reporter rather than answer the allegations.
Friday's ruling pushes back on that trend. By holding that the First Amendment bars a damages award for publishing undercover footage, even when one participant in the investigation crossed legal lines, the D.C. Circuit has given future undercover reporters a stronger shield. The court did not excuse Maass's deception. It simply refused to let that deception become the basis for punishing the publication of the resulting story.
For years, the $130,000 verdict stood as a warning: go undercover against the right people, and you will pay. The D.C. Circuit just erased that warning, and told the public that the First Amendment still means what it says.
