U.S. Rep. Max Miller and his ex-girlfriend Stephanie Grisham were ordered by an Ohio judge on Monday to remove social media posts after both accused each other of violating a 2023 non-disparagement settlement agreement. Judge Emily Hagan of Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court granted preliminary injunctions to both sides, requiring them to take down posts the other party challenged as breaches of their confidential settlement.
The dispute stems from a 2021 defamation lawsuit Miller filed against Grisham, the former White House press secretary, after she publicly accused him of abuse during their 2019-2020 relationship. Miller denied the allegations and sued for defamation, claiming her statements were false and intended to harm his career and sell books. The two settled the case in August 2023 with an agreement that barred both from making disparaging statements about each other or publicly discussing their prior litigation.
Grisham filed suit in July 2026, alleging Miller violated the settlement through social media posts and televised interviews in which he described her abuse allegations as fabricated. In a May 7 post on X, Miller wrote: “Here is a recording from 2024. In it, @MsEmilyMoreno admits 1. Everything alleged by Stephanie Grisham was fabricated.” Grisham’s attorney, Jeffrey Crossman, argued in court that the post expressly accused her of fabricating allegations and violated the confidentiality terms they had agreed to three years earlier.
Miller testified via video conference from Washington that he did not personally control his social media accounts and did not review every post made by his staff. “I don’t have any social media on my phone, I don’t look at the social media that I have,” Miller said under oath. “I don’t review every statement that moves out, but I trust my team.” His attorney, Adam Brown, argued that Grisham had violated the settlement first, pointing to a post she made on April 22, 2026, the same day TMZ published a story about custody allegations involving Miller’s ex-wife, Emily Moreno. That post read: “Today I feel broken over what so many men with money and power get away with. Over & over & over.”
Miller argued his May 7 response was a legitimate defense against what he viewed as Grisham’s breach. “She breached the contract first,” he testified, “So, yeah, I had the right to defend myself.” Grisham denied her April 22 post was about Miller, testifying it referenced developments in the Jeffrey Epstein case, which has generated ongoing news coverage. During her testimony, Grisham said being publicly called a liar by a sitting member of Congress had damaged her reputation and caused her to decline television appearances and speaking opportunities out of fear of being asked about Miller.
Judge Hagan found that both parties had shown “a strong likelihood or probability of success on their merits” and that “public interest will be served by granting the injunction.” The ruling required both Miller and Grisham to remove the specific posts each had challenged. Non-disparagement clauses in settlement agreements are common in defamation and personal injury cases, used to prevent parties from reigniting disputes after reaching a settlement. Such clauses typically bar both sides from making negative statements about each other going forward, though they can create tension when one party believes the other has already broken the agreement and claims a right to respond.
The case marks the latest court appearance for Miller in recent weeks. Last week, he appeared in person at a custody hearing involving his ex-wife, Emily Moreno, the daughter of Republican U.S. Senator Bernie Moreno. Moreno has alleged that Miller abused her during and after their three-year marriage, including holding a gun to her when their daughter was an infant. Miller has denied all abuse allegations. The congressman’s reelection campaign has been clouded by the domestic disputes, though House Speaker Mike Johnson told CNN on Monday that he continues to support Miller’s candidacy, calling him “a great member of Congress.”
Sources
- WKYC — Court hearing details, judge’s order, and testimony from both Miller and Grisham
- CNN — Background on the settlement agreement, specific social media posts cited, and context on Miller’s reelection race
- News 5 Cleveland — Miller’s testimony regarding his social media control and the settlement agreement terms
- Record-Courier — Timeline of the defamation lawsuit and 2023 settlement
