ALEXANDRIA (LN) — A federal judge in Alexandria granted a motion to dismiss on Thursday, ruling that the First Amendment bars a former intelligence consultant from recovering publication-related damages from a conservative activist group for publishing statements recorded during an undercover sting operation.
U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trefg dismissed the lawsuit brought by Amjad Fseisi, a top-secret-cleared consultant for the CIA, NSA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence, against James O’Keefe and his O’Keefe Media Group.
The complaint alleges that O’Keefe’s organization used a false identity to arrange romantic dates with Fseisi in April 2024, surreptitiously recording his comments about government surveillance of former President Donald Trump.
Fseisi alleged that he believed he was on dates with “Jane Doe,” an O’Keefe employee, who pressed him for details on whether agencies had surveilled Trump or withheld information.
Fseisi later met O’Keefe and a cameraman in Washington, where he was confronted with the footage. O’Keefe’s group posted the videos, which included Fseisi stating that “we kept information from him [Trump]” and that the intel community used the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to spy on Trump.
Fseisi claimed the publications caused him to lose his security clearance, resulting in eight months of unemployment and severe emotional distress.
Trefg ruled that Fseisi’s claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy were barred by the First Amendment because all alleged damages arose from the publication of the statements.
The judge relied on the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Food Lion, Inc. v. Cap. Cities/ABC, Inc., which held that while a plaintiff may recover for trespass or breach of loyalty, they cannot recover publication damages without meeting the actual malice standard required for defamation claims.
“Here, as in Food Lion, OMG’s publications, whether defamatory or ‘a product of misrepresentation,’ were clearly a form of expression,” Trefg wrote.
The judge also rejected Fseisi’s claim under the Federal Wiretap Act, ruling that he failed to allege a tortious purpose for the recordings.
Trefg found that the alleged misrepresentations occurred before the recordings were made and were part of the scheme to obtain them, rather than a purpose for their subsequent use.
“Because Plaintiff has not otherwise plausibly alleged that Defendants intercepted his oral communications with the purpose of committing a subsequent tort or criminal offense, his wiretapping claim must be dismissed,” the judge wrote.
Trefg denied Fseisi’s request for leave to amend the complaint, stating that any such amendment would be futile given the basis for the dismissal.
According to the complaint, O’Keefe’s organization has a history of conducting sting operations using false identities to record individuals affiliated with government or progressive organizations.