The Supreme Court has rejected conservative commentator Alex Jones’ appeal to set aside the $1.4 billion verdict in the defamation settlement against him.
Family members of the victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School sued Jones for using his radio and internet platforms to claim the incident was a staged event and referred to the family as “crisis actors.”
The plaintiffs alleged that between 2012 and 2017, Jones’ defamatory statements led to severe harassment, threats, and emotional trauma for them as they grieved the loss of their children. The lawsuit sought damages for invasion of privacy by false light, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of Connecticut’s trade practices act.
They stated that “Jones has also repeatedly asked his listeners to investigate the events surrounding the Sandy Hook shooting and that has led to individuals such as the plaintiffs being subjected to physical confrontation and harassment, death threats, and a sustained barrage of harassment and verbal assault on social media.”
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and left in place the $1.4 billion judgment against him over his description of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as a hoax staged by crisis actors. https://t.co/pWcYE2hbEB pic.twitter.com/C0JVZ9yko3
— The Hollywood Reporter (@THR) October 14, 2025
The court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, ordering Jones to pay $1.4 billion in damages, most of which were punitive.
Jones’ attorneys argued that the settlement was unjust and disproportionate because they were based primarily on violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which was later reversed on appeal. They pointed out that the commentator was “entitled to all the Constitutional protections afforded media defendants” and that the settlement violated those rights.
“Making sure the punishment fits the crime is the key to proportionality. It is not here. Jones appeared, substantially complied with discovery, engaged in motion practice, attended endless status conferences, sat for dozens of depositions and provided tens of thousands of pages of documents to Plaintiffs,” the lawyers argued. “For Sanctions to stand in the face of Jones’s efforts and the vacating of the CUTPA claim, is a denial of Constitutional Due Process and disproportionate.”
The ultimate request was for the Supreme Court to reverse the findings of the lower courts and send the case back for retrial, and grant Jones’ writ of certiorari.
The high court disagreed. It upheld the lower court’s default judgment and held that Jones’ repeated discovery violations and misconduct justified the penalty. It further stated that Jones’ forfeited his First Amendment protections with his “willful noncompliance” with discovery orders and refusal to produce essential documents.
“The Court finds that the Jones defendants have withheld analytics and information that is critical to the plaintiffs ability to conduct meaningful discovery and to prosecute their claims. This callous disregard of their obligations to fully and fairly comply with discovery and Court orders on its own merits a default against the Jones defendants,” the court ruled.
The Supreme Court also recognized that the court awarded the hefty punitive penalties not just compensate the victims, but also to punish Jones and to deter others from engaging in the same type of conduct. Giving Jones more lenient punishments such as fines would not have been enough to adequately address how much evidence he refused to provide. In essence, the commentator is being punished largely because he did not follow the legal process.
This level of punitive awards is rare. They are typically reserved for defendants who have intentionally harmed others.
Infowars, Jones’ company, is now under the control of a court-appointed receiver tasked with overseeing the sale of the company and its assets to pay the judgment. Satirical outlet The Onion placed a winning bid last year. But the sale was blocked due to concerns about the auction process.
I’ve never defended Jones on his clearly false claims about the Sandy Hook shooting. His lies about the families were reprehensible and unnecessary. The families reported being stalked and threatened by people who believed the falsehoods.
But $1.4 billion?
The settlement went way too far. His attorneys were right — the punishment does not fit the offense. It’s likely the lower courts were influenced more by their disdain for Jones’ political views than the actual damage he caused. The fact that the Supreme Court essentially upheld the ruling is also absurd and could have a chilling effect on speech. What happens if a media figure or news outlet gets their reporting wrong in a way that harms innocent people? Will they also have to suffer a “financial death sentence?”
In fact, legacy media outlets have routinely peddled lies about their political opponents. Nick Sandmann, one of the Covington High School students who was viciously smeared by CNN, The Washington Post, and other outlets, comes to mind. He also reached a settlement with these entities — but not to the point that they had to declare bankruptcy. It is not unlikely that this ruling could set a precedent that will allow people to weaponize the system against their political enemies.
