The dispute centers on reporting by Mississippi Today that alleged Bryant used his office to steer millions of federal welfare dollars intended for the state’s poorest residents to benefit his family, friends, and NFL Hall of Fame quarterback Brett Favre. The Bryants sued for defamation, false light, and loss of consortium, asserting that the reporting was false and published with actual malice.
In their complaint, the Bryants alleged that Mississippi Today reporter Anna Wolfe made false statements during a radio interview and in articles, including claims that Bryant received stock in a Favre-affiliated drug company. The Bryants also cited statements by reporter Adam M. Ganucheau and Mary Margaret White, arguing that the defendants’ refusal to issue retractions or apologies after receiving statutory notice underscored their actual malice. The complaint explicitly used the phrase "actual malice" twenty-three times and the word "malice" twice more.
Mississippi Today argued that the complaint should have been dismissed because it contained factual inconsistencies, specifically pointing to an April 2022 interview in which Phil Bryant allegedly conceded that he understood why Wolfe was investigating and acknowledged that his actions did not look good. The news organization contended these admissions contradicted the allegations of defamation and actual malice.
The Mississippi Supreme Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that a complaint does not prove evidence; it must simply allege a claim that, under some set of facts, could entitle the plaintiff to relief. The court noted that trial is the proper forum to resolve factual inconsistencies and determine the weight accorded conflicting facts, not a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
Because the Bryants’ complaint alleged a recognized cause of action upon which, under some set of facts, he might prevail, the trial court erred by dismissing the complaint. The order of dismissal was therefore reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
The court also addressed a separate procedural issue regarding the Bryants’ earlier motions for partial summary judgment. Because those motions were based on a First Amended Complaint that was superseded by a Second Amended Complaint, the court dismissed that portion of the appeal as moot.