Former Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) hasn’t been shy about filing defamation lawsuits that many legal experts consider frivolous according to the standards outlined in U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan. In April 2023, U.S. District Court Judge C.J. Williams threw out a Nunes lawsuit against Esquire and, in 2020, Judge John Marshall ruled that Nunes couldn’t sue two parody accounts on X, (one of which was named Devin Nunes’ Cow and mocked him from the perspective of a fictional cow).

Nunes also sued NBC/Universal in response to comments from top-rated host Rachel Maddow. But on Friday, U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel dismissed that lawsuit, ruling that Nunes failed to show actual malice.

In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Warren Court ruled that libel has to involve actual malice — a ruling that, 61 years ago, countless journalists and legal experts hailed as a major victory for the First Amendment and freedom of the press.

Castel’s ruling is generating a lot of comments on X.

Reuters Jonathan Landay noted that Nunes’ lawsuit involved “a comment by Rachel Maddow about his dealings with a suspected Russian agent.”

X user EJW commented, “Perpetual Loser Nunes — loses again.”

Another X user, Sadie NYC, wrote, “Sucks to be you dude. Trump Media CEO Nunes loses defamation lawsuit over Rachel Maddow show.”

Politico’s Josh Gerstein observed, “BREAKING: Judge tosses fmr Rep. Nunes’ libel suit re MSNBC report on handling of package from Russia-linked legislator. Maddow & producer said they relied on Politico report suggesting Nunes sat on package, didn’t see later 1 saying he gave it to FBI.”

X user Bill Thatcher wrote, “@DevinNunes Such an insecure little weenie. Did she hurt your little feelings?! Devin, the continuing poster boy for thin-skin, low IQ, politically deaf white boys.”