Judge tosses Kash Patel suit over 'Kremlin asset' claim
A Nevada federal judge has dismissed Kash Patel's defamation lawsuit against California blogger Jim Stewartson, who branded the FBI director a "Kremlin asset" and worse online. Chief U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon ruled Stewartson lacked minimum contacts with Nevada, wiping out an earlier default judgment that had awarded Patel and his foundation $250,000.
The July 25 order, reported July 30, 2026, closed a Nevada case Patel filed in 2023—long before he became FBI director—over Stewartson's online attacks. Coverage of the fight, including MS NOW's Deadline: Legal report, underscores how hard it is to haul an out-of-state critic into a plaintiff's home court.
Key Takeaways
- Judge Andrew Gordon dismissed Kash Patel's Nevada defamation suit for lack of personal jurisdiction over Jim Stewartson.
- An earlier default judgment of $200,000 for Patel and $50,000 for his foundation was set aside.
- Gordon held that tagging a Nevada resident or predicting a Nevada trial does not create "minimum contacts" with the state.
- Patel has pursued multiple defamation cases, including a separate suit against The Atlantic over drinking coverage.
- Stewartson said he learned of the default from a CNBC article and celebrated the dismissal on X.
Why did the judge dismiss Kash Patel's lawsuit?
Gordon granted Stewartson's bid to vacate the default and toss the case because the blogger "did not have minimum contacts with Nevada sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction."
Patel lives in Nevada. Stewartson argued the Constitution's due-process guarantee bars using Nevada courts against him. He said he was last in the state in 2016 for a UFC event in Las Vegas and learned of the judgment from news coverage rather than proper notice.
"Tagging Patel, who happens to be a Nevadan resident, in posts that have nothing to do with Nevada activities or entities does not target a Nevadan audience," Gordon wrote. The posts, he found, were "aimed at the American body politic writ large," not Nevada specifically.
What did the blogger say about Kash Patel?
Patel's 2023 complaint accused Stewartson of "pernicious lies," including claims that Patel "attempted to overthrow the government," "planned 1/6," is "guilty of sedition," is a "Kremlin asset," and that he and his foundation paid people to "lie" to Congress. Patel called the statements self-serving publicity for Stewartson's podcast and Substack.
After Stewartson did not defend, Gordon entered the default awards. Stewartson then moved to undo that win. Patel pointed to Stewartson's later X post calling him a "Googly-eyed Kremlin bitch" and saying he would "come back to Nevada for the trial." Gordon rejected that as consent: anticipating a possible trial "does not create a connection between Stewartson and Nevada."
Stewartson celebrated the final order, which footnoted the colorful language, and posted that people could now use terms like "chud" and "googly-eyed Kremlin bitch" without fear of legal repercussions from that case.
How does this fit Kash Patel's other defamation fights?
President Donald Trump's FBI director has filed several defamation suits; one count puts the tally at six in seven years. In a separate Washington case against The Atlantic and a journalist over reported "excessive drinking," the magazine moved to dismiss, calling the suit "an assault, by a man who swore to uphold it, on the core Constitutional value" of robust debate about officials.
Patel's lawyers did not immediately say what they would do next in the Stewartson matter. For more explainers on high-stakes public fights and digital speech, browse Future Tech & AI Wonders on BlasterPost.