Kash Patel's $10 Million Lawsuit Implodes as Federal Judge Tosses Case Over 'Googly-Eyed Kremlin' Insults

What began as Kash Patel's $10 million lawsuit over a string of inflammatory online posts has ended with an unexpected twist and an even louder backlash. Within hours of a federal judge throwing out the case, the man Patel had sued, Jim Stewartson, took a victory lap on X.

In a post that quickly spread across social media, Stewartson declared that people were now 'free' to call the FBI director a 'chud' and a 'googly-eyed Kremlin b**' without fear of legal repercussions. The post instantly became the defining moment. Ironically, the very insults Patel sought to challenge were suddenly reaching a far bigger audience than ever before.

As Stewartson was celebrating his interpretation of the ruling, the court itself never decided whether his statements were true, false, or legally protected.

Why the Lawsuit Was Dismissed

The Kash Patel defamation lawsuit was dismissed on 25 July by Chief US District Judge Andrew P. Gordon, but not because the court weighed the merits of Stewartson's remarks.

Instead, the case fell apart over a procedural hurdle known as personal jurisdiction.

Patel and the Kash Foundation had sued Stewartson over posts published on X and Substack between June 2021 and May 2023. The complaint alleged Stewartson falsely accused Patel of attempting to overthrow the government, planning the events of 6 January, committing sedition, acting as a Kremlin asset and using his foundation to pay people to lie to Congress.

Patel sought $10 million in damages, arguing the statements damaged his reputation. But before any evidence could be tested or any witness called, the court concluded that Nevada simply was not the proper place to hear the dispute.

Judge Gordon ruled that Stewartson lacked the 'minimum contacts' with Nevada required for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction. Although the posts were accessible in Nevada and mentioned Patel, who lives there, they were not specifically directed at the state or a Nevada audience.

The judge also noted that tagging Patel on social media was not enough to establish jurisdiction because the posts had 'nothing to do with Nevada activities or entities.'

In other words, the lawsuit ended before the court ever considered whether the alleged defamation had actually occurred.

Judge Criticises Stewartson's Conduct

Although the federal judge dismissed Kash Patel's lawsuit, Stewartson did not emerge without criticism.

Judge Gordon said Stewartson appeared to know about the litigation and may have tried to avoid being served despite multiple attempts.

'He has wasted the plaintiffs' and the court's time, and I do not commend his actions,' Gordon wrote.

The criticism underscored an important point: the dismissal was based on jurisdiction alone, not an endorsement of Stewartson's behaviour during the case.

The Lawsuit May Have Backfired

For many observers, the most striking aspect of Kash Patel vs Jim Stewartson is what happened after the ruling.

Instead of disappearing, the controversy exploded.

Stewartson's celebratory post quickly circulated online, with many users sharing the same insults that had prompted Patel's lawsuit in the first place. It was a textbook example of how legal battles can sometimes amplify the very claims they are intended to suppress.

That does not mean the court ruled people are legally free to make defamatory statements about Patel. It simply means the judge decided this particular lawsuit could not proceed in Nevada.

Patel's Broader Legal Strategy

The dismissal also comes as Patel pursues another major legal battle, this time against The Atlantic.

In a separate lawsuit, Patel is seeking $250 million, alleging the magazine falsely reported that he drank on the job and that officials inside the FBI questioned his leadership during the investigation into the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Patel has dismissed those claims as 'false and obviously fabricated'. Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has publicly defended him, calling Patel 'a critical player on the Administration's law and order team.'

The Atlantic, however, has stood by its reporting and says it intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Taken together, the cases highlight Patel's increasingly aggressive legal response to critics, while also showing how difficult defamation claims can become when jurisdictional questions arise before the facts are ever examined.

What Happens Next

For now, Kash Patel's 'googly-eyed Kremlin' lawsuit is over, but it may not be finished for good.

Because the case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds rather than its merits, Patel could still explore filing in another court with proper authority over Stewartson. Whether he chooses to do so remains unclear.

What is already certain is that the lawsuit produced an outcome few could have predicted. Instead of settling the dispute over Stewartson's remarks, it transformed them into a nationally reported courtroom saga, ensuring the controversy would travel far beyond the social media posts where it first began.