Appeals court voids James O'Keefe $130k sting verdict
A federal appeals court on Friday tossed out a $130,000 judgment against James O'Keefe and Project Veritas over a 2016 undercover sting of Democratic consulting firm Democracy Partners, ruling that First Amendment limits blocked damages tied mainly to lawful reporting outside the firm. The decision is a major legal win for the hidden-camera activist.
Key Takeaways
- The D.C. Circuit threw out a $130,000 judgment against James O'Keefe tied to a 2016 Project Veritas sting.
- Judges said the award improperly mixed unlawful infiltration with lawful reporting done elsewhere.
- A 2022 jury had awarded $120,000 for fraud, and a judge later added $10,000 for wiretapping.
- O'Keefe called it a First Amendment victory; the plaintiffs say they are weighing next steps.
What did the appeals court decide about James O'Keefe?
According to Politico, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday vacated the award Democratic consultant Robert Creamer and Democracy Partners won after a 2022 jury trial.
Writing for the court, Judge Karen Henderson said the judgment violated the First Amendment by muddling consequences of legal Project Veritas activity with unlawful parts of the firm's infiltration.
Henderson and Judge Harry Edwards said the $120,000 fraud verdict should be wiped out entirely. Judge Robert Wilkins said he would reduce damages to a nominal amount, typically $1.
Why did the 2016 undercover sting spark a lawsuit?
Project Veritas released a video weeks before the 2016 election claiming Creamer and Democracy Partners sought to foment violence at Donald Trump rallies. Operative Allison Maass lied about her identity to obtain an internship and secretly recorded meetings, the court said.
The footage drew a debate mention from Trump. Creamer denied provoking violence, but the Democratic National Committee severed ties with him and his firm.
Creamer sued over illegal wiretapping, trespass, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. The jury awarded $120,000 for fraudulent misrepresentation; a judge later awarded $10,000 on the wiretapping claim.
Does the ruling fully protect undercover reporting?
Not fully. Henderson wrote that Maass obtained footage by subterfuge and that the jury found fraud, so neither she nor O'Keefe had a First Amendment right to gather or publish that material from inside Democracy Partners.
The panel still blocked most damages because Creamer's financial injury largely stemmed from lawful undercover reporting outside the firm's offices. Henderson and Edwards also said Maass had no fiduciary duty during her unpaid internship; Wilkins dissented on that point.
O'Keefe, who launched a new venture after leaving Project Veritas in 2023, said the win legitimizes undercover reporting. Attorney Joseph Sandler said Creamer's side was disappointed and evaluating next steps.
What other legal heat is James O'Keefe facing?
Separately, CBS News Minnesota reported that an undercover video linked to O'Keefe Media Group and the Citizen Justice League may have broken Minnesota law by impersonating voters while testing the state's vouching rules.
CBS said the video shows O'Keefe identifying himself as William Pomeranz; the real Pomeranz said his identity was misrepresented. Impersonating a Minnesota voter can be a felony. A Reuters fact check also said an undercover O'Keefe video misrepresented Minnesota's election vouching law.
For more case updates and investigative fallout, follow BlasterPost's True Crime & Unsolved Mysteries coverage.