{"id":214338,"date":"2025-09-10T02:11:10","date_gmt":"2025-09-10T02:11:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/214338\/"},"modified":"2025-09-10T02:11:10","modified_gmt":"2025-09-10T02:11:10","slug":"alex-jones-asks-us-supreme-court-to-hear-appeal-of-1-4b-sandy-hook-award","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/214338\/","title":{"rendered":"Alex Jones asks US Supreme Court to hear appeal of $1.4B Sandy Hook award"},"content":{"rendered":"

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones<\/a> has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his appeal of the $1.4 billion judgment<\/a> a Connecticut jury and judge issued against him for calling the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting<\/a> a hoax staged by crisis actors.<\/p>\n

The Infowars host is arguing that the judge was wrong to find him liable for defamation and infliction of emotional distress without holding a trial on the merits of allegations lodged by relatives of victims of the shooting, which killed 20 first graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut.<\/p>\n

Judge Barbara Bellis, frustrated at what she called Jones\u2019 repeated failure to abide by court rulings and to turn over certain evidence to the Sandy Hook families, issued a rare default ruling<\/a> against Jones and his company in late 2021 as a penalty. That meant that she found him liable without a trial on the facts and convened a jury to only determine what damages he owed.<\/p>\n

A six-person jury in Waterbury issued a $964 million verdict<\/a> in October 2022 in favor of the plaintiffs \u2014 an FBI agent who responded to the shooting and relatives of eight children and adults who were killed. Bellis later tacked on another $473 million in punitive damages against Jones and Free Speech Systems, Infowars\u2019 parent company that is based in Austin, Texas.<\/p>\n

During the trial to determine damages, relatives of the shooting victims testified<\/a> that people whom they called followers of Jones subjected them to death and rape threats, in-person harassment and abusive comments on social media. Jones argues there was never any proof presented that linked him to those actions.<\/p>\n

Jones filed his request to the Supreme Court on Friday and it was released by the court on Tuesday.<\/p>\n

Jones\u2019 lawyers \u2014 Ben Broocks, Shelby Jordan and Alan Daughtry \u2014 insist in the petition that state courts cannot determine liability based only on sanctions such as default rulings. They say that constitutional law and Supreme Court precedent require public figures such as the Sandy Hook families to prove their defamation claims against journalists such as Jones. <\/p>\n

They also say that the Connecticut judge imposed the default ruling on Jones based on \u201ctrivial\u201d reasons and that Jones had substantially complied with the court\u2019s orders \u2014 which the Sandy Hook families\u2019 lawyers deny. <\/p>\n

Jones\u2019 attorneys further cite First Amendment protections for free speech, saying Jones\u2019 comments about the school shooting being a hoax were not defamatory but rather \u201cexpressions of constitutionally protected opinion.\u201d Jones has since said he believed the shooting was \u201c100% real.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cThe media landscape is rife with groups challenging various events, including Holocaust denial, moon landing skepticism, 9\/11 conspiracy theories, and even flat Earth claims,\u201d the petition says. \u201cHowever, such statements critique or dismiss the events themselves, not the character, conduct, or reputation of those associated with them.\u201d<\/p>\n

Among other claims, Jones\u2019 petition says the $1.4 billion judgment is excessive punishment under the Eighth Amendment.<\/p>\n

If the judgment is allowed to stand, Jones\u2019 lawyers said it would \u201cchill the reporting of news\u201d and \u201cresult in self-censoring fear of suits.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lawyers for the Sandy Hook families disputed Jones\u2019 arguments.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is no legitimate basis for the U.S. Supreme Court to accept this last gasp from Alex Jones and we will oppose it in due course,\u201d Christopher Mattei, a lawyer for the families, said in a statement.<\/p>\n

A mid-level appellate court in Connecticut upheld all but $150 million<\/a> of the $1.4 billion judgment in December, and the state Supreme Court declined to hear Jones\u2019 appeal<\/a> of that ruling in April.<\/p>\n

In a similar defamation lawsuit filed in Texas by the parents of another Sandy Hook victim, Jones was found liable without a trial as punishment for failing to turn over documents. In that case, which also is being appealed, a judge and jury issued a $49 million judgment<\/a> against Jones in August 2022.<\/p>\n

Jones filed for bankruptcy<\/a> in late 2022. In those proceedings, an auction was held in November to liquidate Infowars\u2019 assets to help pay the defamation judgments, and the satirical news outlet The Onion<\/a> was named the winning bidder. But the bankruptcy judge threw out the auction results<\/a>, citing problems with the process and The Onion\u2019s bid. <\/p>\n

The attempt to sell off Infowars\u2019 assets has moved to a Texas state court in Austin. Jones is now appealing a recent order from the court that appointed a receiver<\/a> to liquidate the assets. Some of Jones\u2019 personal property is also being sold off as part of the bankruptcy case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his appeal of the $1.4 billion…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":214339,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,3],"tags":[117199,117198,359,117200,117201,64,411,117202,413,2738,356,820,57,4222,118,12588,336,362,50,3677,369,358,5028,61,67,132,68],"class_list":{"0":"post-214338","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-united-states","8":"category-us","9":"tag-alan-daughtry","10":"tag-alex-jones","11":"tag-austin","12":"tag-barbara-bellis","13":"tag-ben-broocks","14":"tag-business","15":"tag-censorship","16":"tag-christopher-mattei","17":"tag-civil-rights","18":"tag-connecticut","19":"tag-courts","20":"tag-fraud","21":"tag-general-news","22":"tag-gun-violence","23":"tag-human-rights","24":"tag-juries","25":"tag-lawsuits","26":"tag-legal-proceedings","27":"tag-news","28":"tag-shootings","29":"tag-supreme-court-of-the-united-states","30":"tag-texas","31":"tag-tx-state-wire","32":"tag-u-s-news","33":"tag-united-states","34":"tag-unitedstates","35":"tag-us"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115177579069008024","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214338","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=214338"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214338\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/214339"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214338"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214338"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214338"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}