A federal appeals court handed conservative activist James O’Keefe a significant legal victory Friday, overturning a $130,000 judgment that a Democratic consultant had won against him over an undercover video sting tied to the 2016 presidential election. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the award violated the First Amendment by mixing the consequences of lawful reporting with unlawful conduct during the infiltration of the consulting firm, Democracy Partners.
The judgment stemmed from a 2022 jury trial in which a federal jury in Washington awarded Robert Creamer, the founder of Democracy Partners, $120,000 for fraudulent misrepresentation and $10,000 for wiretapping after Project Veritas, O’Keefe’s media organization, released a video series called “Rigging the Election” weeks before the 2016 general election. The video alleged that Creamer and his firm were seeking to foment violence at Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s rallies.
To gather the footage, Project Veritas operative Allison Maass had infiltrated Democracy Partners by posing as an unpaid intern named “Angela Brandt.” She lied about her identity to secure the position and secretly recorded audio and video of meetings at the firm’s Washington office over eight days in late September 2016. The court acknowledged that Maass obtained footage through subterfuge, which the jury found amounted to fraud.
However, the three-judge panel concluded that the $120,000 award could not stand because much of the financial injury Creamer incurred was due to lawful undercover reporting Project Veritas conducted outside Democracy Partners’ offices. In separate opinions, two judges said the entire $120,000 verdict should be wiped out, while a third suggested cutting damages to a nominal amount—typically $1.
The consequences of the video’s release were swift and severe for Creamer. Within days of publication, AFSCME, a major union and one of Creamer’s largest clients, terminated its consulting agreements with his firms and revoked funding to Americans United for Change (AUFC), a political consulting group where Creamer worked. AFSCME’s government affairs director testified at trial that the “sense of scandal” and bad “optics” created by the video were major factors in the decision to sever ties, though the union also cited the security breach—learning that an undercover journalist had infiltrated the office.
O’Keefe, who was ousted from Project Veritas in 2023 amid allegations of financial mismanagement, celebrated the ruling as a watershed moment for undercover journalism. “There are no words to describe the magnitude of this victory,” he said in an interview. “It legitimizes and legalizes undercover reporting that I do. The First Amendment would be worth very little if the government could not punish a news story directly, but a jury could simply tally up the political and financial consequences of that story and send the journalists the bill.”
The ruling raises ongoing questions about the extent of First Amendment protections for undercover reporting based on subterfuge or deceit. Such tactics are currently rare in mainstream journalism, but the case law reflects a broader tension between press freedom and the legal boundaries of infiltration and secret recording. Project Veritas has faced multiple lawsuits over its investigative methods, including a $120,000 jury verdict from Democracy Partners in 2022 and other settlements stemming from its sting operations.
An attorney for Creamer and Democracy Partners, Joseph Sandler, said his clients were evaluating next steps. “We of course are disappointed in the ruling and do not believe the appeal was correctly decided,” Sandler said via email. The case is now likely to face further appellate consideration or potential settlement discussions, though the D.C. Circuit’s decision significantly weakens Creamer’s position.
Sources
- Politico — reported the D.C. Circuit’s decision to overturn the $130,000 judgment and O’Keefe’s statement celebrating the ruling
- D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — provided the full opinion detailing the facts of the 2016 sting operation, the jury trial, and the court’s reasoning on First Amendment grounds
- Reuters — confirmed the original 2022 jury verdict awarding $120,000 for fraudulent misrepresentation and the wiretapping findings
