Kash Patel has filed eight lawsuits since 2019. None produced a lasting win

Kash Patel has been in court as a plaintiff or a defendant at least 16 times since 2019, plus one related records fight. Court records reviewed by 567 Politics show that none of the eight lawsuits he filed has produced a lasting win. His only money judgment, a $250,000 default award against a blogger, was vacated in July 2026. On the other side of the docket, eight lawsuits filed by fired FBI agents and analysts since September 2025 name him in his official capacity as FBI director. None of those has reached a ruling on the merits.

The pattern matters because Patel now runs the agency whose firings are being challenged, and because his defamation suits test how far a sitting law enforcement chief can go in suing journalists and critics. Allegations in a complaint are claims, not findings. This roundup separates what judges have ruled from what the parties allege. It lists every case 567 Politics could verify on a court docket or in a court opinion, as of Nov. 11, 2026.

For the online claims about Patel that have circulated separately, see our earlier check of claims about Kash Patel on X and what the records show. His career and confirmation record are on his 567 Politics profile.

The scorecard: eight suits filed, no lasting win#

Patel's suits fall into two groups. Six are defamation cases against news outlets and critics. Two are claims against the federal government: one over a delayed Pentagon review of his book, and one over a 2017 grand jury subpoena for his Google account data.

• Dismissed by a court
• Dropped by Patel
• Pending
• Status unclear

0

2

4

6

8

Filed by PatelDismissed by a court: 4Dropped by Patel: 2Pending: 1Status unclear: 1

Filed against PatelDismissed by a court: 0Dropped by Patel: 0Pending: 8Status unclear: 0

Filed by PatelFiled against Patel

Source: CourtListener dockets, Court of Appeals of Virginia, D. Nev. order

Show the numbers

Side	Dismissed by a court	Dropped by Patel	Pending	Status unclear
Filed by Patel	4	2	1	1
Filed against Patel	0	0	8	0

The four court dismissals rest on different grounds. The CNN case failed on actual malice, the Figliuzzi case on rhetorical hyperbole, the Stewartson case on personal jurisdiction, and the Google subpoena case on the absence of a damages remedy. Only the Figliuzzi ruling is under appeal. The Atlantic case, his largest at $250 million, is pending.

The docket numbers for the Virginia state cases come from a list of Patel's earlier suits in The Atlantic's motion to dismiss, filed July 27, 2026. 567 Politics checked them against the original complaints where those were public.

The 2019 Ukraine suits: Politico and The New York Times#

Patel's first suits followed reporting on his role in the Ukraine affair that led to President Donald Trump's first impeachment. He was a National Security Council aide at the time.

Politico. On Nov. 18, 2019, Patel sued Politico, reporter Natasha Bertrand and owner Robert Allbritton in Henrico County Circuit Court in Virginia, case No. CL-19-6745. The Atlantic's later filing describes the suit as seeking $25 million for defamation and common-law conspiracy. Politico moved the case to federal court (E.D. Va. No. 3:19-cv-00879). It then consented to send it back in December 2019 after Patel's lawyer said Patel was a District of Columbia citizen, which would defeat diversity jurisdiction. The Atlantic's July 2026 filing describes the Henrico case as "voluntarily dismissed prior to any court action." A New York Times account, republished by The Philadelphia Inquirer on June 14, 2026, reported that Patel dropped the first Politico suit after not serving the company and then filed a new one that is "still active." 567 Politics could not find that newer case on a public docket, so its status is listed as unclear.

The New York Times. On Nov. 27, 2019, Patel sued the Times and reporter Adam Goldman in Fairfax County Circuit Court over an Oct. 23, 2019 article. It reported that White House aides were concerned Patel was a back channel to Trump on Ukraine. The complaint sought $44.95 million. According to the Times account, Patel never served the papers and later dropped the case. The Atlantic's filing also lists it as voluntarily dismissed before any court action.

The CNN suit: the one with a published appellate ruling#

The CNN case is the only one of Patel's media suits to produce a published appellate opinion. In December 2020, while he was chief of staff to the acting defense secretary, Patel sued CNN and five reporters in Fairfax County. Fox News reported at the time that he was seeking $50 million. He objected to a Nov. 24, 2020 article calling him "a Trump loyalist who was connected to efforts to spread conspiracy theories about Joe Biden," and to similar language in a Dec. 5, 2020 article.

The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice. On Jan. 21, 2025, the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed in Record No. 1573-23-4, with Judge Frucci dissenting. Writing for the majority, Senior Judge Rosemarie Annunziata held that Patel, an admitted public official, had not pleaded facts showing that any specific person at CNN knew the statements were false or doubted them. The allegations, she wrote, "do not even attempt to 'bring home' the requisite 'state of mind' to the actual publishers of the challenged statements." The court noted that the House Intelligence Committee's Ukraine report described testimony about Ukraine-related "materials" that President Trump believed he had received from Patel. Patel had denied any back-channel role. The ruling decided only that his complaint failed the actual-malice standard. It did not find that CNN's characterization was true.

The Stewartson case: a $250,000 win that was later erased#

The case closest to a win for Patel ended without one. On June 3, 2023, Patel and his charity, the Kash Foundation, sued blogger Jim Stewartson in federal court in Las Vegas (D. Nev. No. 2:23-cv-00873). They objected to posts on X and Substack between 2021 and 2023 saying Patel "planned 1/6," was "guilty of sedition" and was a "Kremlin asset."

Stewartson did not appear, and on Aug. 5, 2025, Chief Judge Andrew P. Gordon entered a default judgment. It awarded Patel $100,000 in compensatory and $100,000 in punitive damages, and the foundation $25,000 of each. The judge noted the plaintiffs' "scant evidence of harm." Because of the default, the complaint's allegations were taken as true. No court weighed evidence on whether the posts were false.

Stewartson then hired lawyers. He argued he had never been properly served and that Nevada courts had no power over him. On July 25, 2026, Gordon granted both motions. He found Stewartson lacked the minimum contacts with Nevada needed for personal jurisdiction, so the judgment was "void," and he dismissed the case. The order does not address whether the posts were defamatory. Stewartson told the Times he thought it was "hysterical" that the complaint cited his calling Patel a "chud."

Suits against the government before he led the FBI#

Two of Patel's cases targeted federal agencies.

On May 3, 2023, he sued the Defense Department (D.D.C. No. 1:23-cv-01255). He claimed its prepublication review of his book manuscript, "Government Gangsters," was an unconstitutional prior restraint because it sought to remove unclassified material. The docket shows he filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on July 3, 2023. There was no ruling.

On Sept. 14, 2023, he sued former Justice Department and FBI officials, including former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and former FBI Director Christopher Wray, in Patel v. Liu (D.D.C. No. 1:23-cv-02699). He alleged that a 2017 grand jury subpoena to Google for his account information violated the Fourth Amendment. On Sept. 25, 2024, Judge Amit P. Mehta dismissed the case. He held that no implied damages remedy exists for this "new Bivens context," and that the officials had qualified immunity in any event.

Figliuzzi: 'rhetorical hyperbole,' now on appeal#

Four months after taking office, Patel sued Frank Figliuzzi, a former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence, in Houston on June 2, 2025 (S.D. Tex. No. 4:25-cv-02548). On MSNBC's Morning Joe, Figliuzzi had said Patel "reportedly" had "been visible at nightclubs far more than he has been on the seventh floor of the Hoover building."

On April 21, 2026, Judge George C. Hanks Jr. dismissed the suit. He wrote that "a person of reasonable intelligence and learning would not have taken his statement literally" and called it "rhetorical hyperbole that cannot constitute defamation." The dismissal was without prejudice. The judge denied Figliuzzi's request for fees under Texas's anti-SLAPP law, because the Fifth Circuit does not apply that statute in federal court. Patel filed a notice of appeal on May 14, 2026. The district docket shows the Fifth Circuit assigned it No. 26-20263. 567 Politics found no appellate ruling.

The Atlantic: $250 million, with discovery now frozen#

Patel's largest suit is pending in Washington. On April 20, 2026, he sued The Atlantic and staff writer Sarah Fitzpatrick (D.D.C. No. 1:26-cv-01329) over an April 17 article on what it said were colleagues' concerns about his "erratic behavior and excessive drinking." The complaint calls the piece a "sweeping, malicious, and defamatory hit piece." It says Patel "does not drink to excess" and seeks at least $250 million. It argues The Atlantic ignored pre-publication warnings and relied on anonymous, partisan sources.

The Atlantic moved to dismiss on July 27, 2026. Its lawyers argue that Patel, as a public figure, has not plausibly pleaded actual malice, and they cite his earlier losses against CNN and Figliuzzi. On Nov. 10, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted the magazine's request to pause discovery while he considers that motion. He cited "Defendants' legitimate First Amendment concerns" and said discovery "may be unnecessary." Both sides may still request government records under the Justice Department's Touhy rules. Sullivan has not ruled on whether the article was defamatory.

The suit resembles other recent defamation cases by Trump allies, including Trump's dismissed suit against The Wall Street Journal, where a federal judge also found no plausible claim of actual malice.

Eight suits by fired FBI employees#

Since Patel became director on Feb. 20, 2025, the FBI has fired agents and analysts with summary letters. Eight lawsuits verified on federal dockets challenge those removals. Each names Patel in his official capacity, and most also name the FBI and the Justice Department. Their accounts of Patel's motives are allegations. No court has decided whether any firing was unlawful.

Driscoll, Jensen and Evans. Former acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll and two senior agents say Patel fired them on Aug. 8, 2025. Their complaint alleges Patel told Driscoll that his superiors had directed him to fire people who worked on Trump investigations, that his own job depended on it, and that he knew the firings were "likely illegal." It contrasts that with Patel's confirmation testimony to Sen. Richard Blumenthal that "every FBI employee will be held to the absolute same standard." The government has moved to dismiss. The docket shows briefing finished in March 2026, and no ruling as of Nov. 11.$

The kneeling agents. In Does v. Patel, agents fired after kneeling during a June 4, 2020 racial-justice protest in Washington say the removals violated the First and Fifth Amendments. Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse summarizes the agents' position that they knelt to de-escalate the crowd. Judge Trevor McFadden partly granted a government motion to compel on July 31, 2026. A motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, filed Sept. 30, is pending.

Arctic Frost agents. Doe 1 and Garman (a proposed class action) were brought by agents who worked on Arctic Frost, the investigation that led to Trump's 2023 election-interference indictment. Judge Jia M. Cobb set a joint argument on the government's motions to dismiss for Oct. 21, 2026. The government's combined brief says Patel removed them because they "exercised poor judgment and a lack of impartiality in carrying out duties, leading to the political weaponization of the government." It argues FBI agents are at-will employees with no property interest in their jobs, and that the case "does not ask the Court to decide whether Plaintiffs' removals were warranted."

Individual analysts and agents. Brian Jablonski, a management and program analyst, says Patel personally signed a one-page memo firing him on Feb. 1, 2026, citing only Article II of the Constitution. Kourtney Pearson brings similar due-process and Administrative Procedure Act claims before Judge Richard J. Leon. Agent Stephen Friend, suing in Orlando, alleges Patel signed a Dec. 12, 2025 letter removing him over podcast commentary on the FBI's investigation of the Jan. 6, 2021 pipe bombs. Friend argues that commentary was protected speech as a private citizen.

Mar-a-Lago team. In Bacon v. Patel, nine former agents, analysts and staff operations specialists who worked on the classified-documents investigation known as Plasmic Echo say they were fired on Feb. 25 and 26, 2026. Their complaint argues the firings were retaliation. It is assigned to Judge Amy Berman Jackson, and the government has not yet responded.

A related records fight: Politico and the grand jury#

One related case did not name Patel as a party, but it concerned him directly. In In re Application of Politico (D.D.C. Misc. No. 25-7), Politico sought sealed records about Patel's 2022 grand jury subpoena in the special counsel's classified-documents investigation. On July 21, 2025, Chief Judge James E. Boasberg granted the request in part. He noted the already-public facts that Patel invoked the Fifth Amendment and was then granted immunity. Testifying under immunity is not an admission of wrongdoing, and Patel was not charged.

A timeline of the filings#

1. 2019-11-18Patel sues Politico in Henrico County
2. 2019-11-27Patel sues The New York Times in Fairfax County
3. 2020-12Patel sues CNN in Fairfax County
4. 2023-05-03Patel sues the Defense Department over his book review
5. 2023-06-03Patel sues blogger Jim Stewartson in Nevada
6. 2023-09-14Patel sues former DOJ and FBI officials over a Google subpoena
7. 2025-06-02Patel sues Frank Figliuzzi in Houston
8. 2025-09-10Driscoll, Jensen and Evans sue Patel
9. 2025-12-08Fired kneeling agents sue Patel
10. 2026-02-12Analyst Brian Jablonski sues Patel
11. 2026-02-17Kourtney Pearson sues Patel
12. 2026-03-19Arctic Frost agents sue as Doe 1 and Doe 2
13. 2026-03-31Garman class action filed
14. 2026-04-20Patel sues The Atlantic for $250 million
15. 2026-10-01Agent Stephen Friend sues Patel in Orlando
16. 2026-10-15Nine Mar-a-Lago case employees sue Patel

Source: CourtListener, Court of Appeals of Virginia

What the record shows, and what it doesn't#

The record shows a consistent legal obstacle for Patel as a plaintiff. As a public official or public figure, he must plead facts showing that a publisher knew a statement was false or seriously doubted it. Two courts have now held that he failed to do so, or that the statement could not be read as fact. The dismissals do not establish that the reporting he challenged was accurate. The Stewartson ruling turned only on jurisdiction.

As a defendant, the record is unsettled. The fired employees' accounts of private conversations and political motives are untested allegations. The government's position, set out in its briefs, is that the FBI director has broad summary-removal authority and that the firings concerned how the employees did their jobs. Judges Cobb, McFadden, Leon, Jackson and the Orlando court have yet to rule on those competing accounts.

For broader context on how 567 Politics has covered Patel's public statements, see the resurfaced 2024 clip of Patel on Israel. For another high-profile defamation fight over public figures and the actual-malice standard, see our timeline of the Macrons' suit against Candace Owens.

Responses#

The FBI's position on the firings is the one in the Justice Department's court filings. They quote Patel's statements that he removed employees who had "weaponized" law enforcement and performed their work in a "politicized" manner. In the Atlantic case, Patel's lawyers have filed his complaint and opposed dismissal. The Atlantic is defending its reporting in its motion to dismiss. The Inquirer, reprinting the Times account, reported that the Virginia appeals court awarded CNN $150 and that the network declined to say whether Patel had paid. Stewartson has stood by his posts. 567 Politics did not find a separate public statement from Patel on the Stewartson vacatur or the Nov. 10 discovery ruling. This story will be updated as rulings come in.

How this roundup was compiled#

567 Politics searched CourtListener's federal docket archive for cases naming Patel, read the opinions and orders linked above, and used court filings for the Virginia state cases. A case was included only if its docket, complaint or opinion was available. Several reported matters were left out because 567 Politics could not verify a docket. These include a reported case styled Souther v. Patel that was cited in other fired-agent filings, the refiled Politico suit, and a 2025 habeas petition (Wahidi v. Trump) that names Patel only as a nominal respondent.

Differing perspectives

Are FBI Director Kash Patel's lawsuits and agent firings within his legal rights?

Each position is summarized as its supporters make it, with equal weight and in alphabetical order. A summary is not an endorsement; the evidence for each is weighed in the story above.

• Defend his reputation in court

  Who holds it: Kash Patel and his lawyers

  Patel argues that The Atlantic published a malicious and defamatory account of excessive drinking and absences, that he does not drink to excess, and that the magazine ignored pre-publication warnings and relied on anonymous, partisan sources. His complaint seeks at least $250 million. In earlier suits he has argued that news outlets and critics were wrong to tie him to a Ukraine back channel and to the Jan. 6 attack, and that those statements damaged his reputation and his foundation. He has used court filings to answer reporting he says is untrue.

  In their words: U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Patel's complaint) ↗

• Dismiss the suits under actual malice

  Who holds it: The Atlantic, CNN and other news defendants

  The Atlantic argues that Patel is a public official and public figure who has not plausibly pleaded actual malice, meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Its motion cites his earlier losses against CNN and Frank Figliuzzi and warns that long, expensive litigation can chill reporting even when a defendant ultimately prevails. In the CNN case, Virginia's Court of Appeals held that Patel's allegations did not bring home a culpable state of mind to the people who published the articles. Figliuzzi's lawyers argued that a remark about nightclubs was rhetorical hyperbole, not a statement of fact.

  In their words: U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (The Atlantic's motion to dismiss) ↗

• Treat the firings as lawful at-will removals

  Who holds it: The Justice Department, defending Patel in his official capacity

  The Justice Department argues that FBI employees serve at will and have no property interest in their jobs, and that the FBI director has broad authority to remove them. In the Garman and related cases, the government quotes dismissal letters saying the plaintiffs exercised poor judgment and a lack of impartiality, leading to what it calls the political weaponization of government. Its brief says the court is not being asked to decide whether the removals were warranted, only whether they were lawful. It also notes that some of the Garman plaintiffs have already found new jobs.

  In their words: U.S. Department of Justice (motion to dismiss in Garman v. Patel) ↗

• Treat the firings as unlawful retaliation

  Who holds it: Fired FBI agents and analysts suing Patel

  The fired employees argue that Patel removed them not for poor performance but in retaliation for work on investigations involving Donald Trump, for kneeling during a 2020 protest, or for public commentary. In the Driscoll complaint, the plaintiffs say Patel told Driscoll he was directed to fire agents who had worked on Trump cases, that his own job depended on it, and that he knew the firings were "likely illegal." They contrast that with his confirmation testimony that every FBI employee would be held to the same standard. Other complaints allege due-process and First Amendment violations from one-page Article II dismissal memos.

  In their words: U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Driscoll complaint) ↗

{{cite news |title=Kash Patel has filed eight lawsuits since 2019. None produced a lasting win |url=https://567politics.com/news/kash-patel-lawsuits-roundup-atlantic-figliuzzi-fired-fbi-agents-november-2026 |work=567politics |author=567 Politics staff |date=2026-11-11 |language=en}}

{
  "id": "https://567politics.com/news/kash-patel-lawsuits-roundup-atlantic-figliuzzi-fired-fbi-agents-november-2026",
  "type": "article-newspaper",
  "title": "Kash Patel has filed eight lawsuits since 2019. None produced a lasting win",
  "URL": "https://567politics.com/news/kash-patel-lawsuits-roundup-atlantic-figliuzzi-fired-fbi-agents-november-2026",
  "container-title": "567politics",
  "language": "en",
  "author": [
    {
      "literal": "567 Politics staff"
    }
  ],
  "issued": {
    "date-parts": [
      [
        2026,
        11,
        11
      ]
    ]
  }
}

<iframe src="https://567politics.com/embed/news/kash-patel-lawsuits-roundup-atlantic-figliuzzi-fired-fbi-agents-november-2026?theme=auto" title="Kash Patel has filed eight lawsuits since 2019. None produced a lasting win by 567politics" width="100%" height="440" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font-size:14px">Kash Patel has filed eight lawsuits since 2019. None produced a lasting win by <a href="https://567politics.com/news/kash-patel-lawsuits-roundup-atlantic-figliuzzi-fired-fbi-agents-november-2026" rel="nofollow">567politics</a></p>
<script async src="https://567politics.com/embed.js"></script>