Judge Dismisses Defamation Claims Against Candace Owens
A Delaware judge ruled the court lacks jurisdiction over the commentator in a lawsuit filed by the Macrons.
Updated on Oct. 28, 2026 in Law
Live Poll
Should public figures be held personally liable for defamatory claims they make online?
Delaware Superior Court Judge Sheldon K. Rennie dismissed defamation claims against Candace Owens in a lawsuit filed by Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron. The court determined it lacks personal jurisdiction over Owens, who resides in Tennessee.
Why it matters
The Macrons allege that Owens caused irreparable damage to their reputations through her statements. While the case against the individual is closed, the lawsuit continues against two companies owned by Owens.
Judge Sheldon K. Rennie ruled on October 27, 2026, that the Delaware Superior Court lacks jurisdiction over Candace Owens personally. The legal action remains active against Candace Owens L.L.C. and GeorgeTom Inc.
The players
Candace Owens
She is a political commentator and media personality who resides in Tennessee.
Emmanuel Macron
He is the President of France and a plaintiff in the defamation lawsuit.
Brigitte Macron
She is the wife of the French President and a plaintiff in the defamation lawsuit.
Sheldon K. Rennie
He is a judge presiding over the case in Delaware Superior Court.
The details
The defamation lawsuit, which was originally filed in July 2025, remains active against the two corporate entities owned by the commentator. The court retained jurisdiction over those business structures even as it removed Owens from the individual claims.
Timeline
The Macrons filed the defamation lawsuit in July 2025.
The judge issued the ruling on October 27, 2026.
Political Context
The ruling clarifies how the jurisdictional reach of Delaware corporate law applies to individual defendants versus corporate entities incorporated in the state. Opponents of this legal interpretation argue that it could allow individuals to insulate themselves from liability by routing speech through corporate shells.
This decision limits the legal venues where public figures can be held personally accountable for alleged defamation. It reinforces the importance of corporate structure as a potential shield for individuals in civil litigation.
The takeaway
This ruling highlights the high bar for establishing personal jurisdiction in defamation cases involving interstate defendants. Readers should note that corporate entities can remain targets for litigation even when individual owners are dismissed from specific court actions.
Further reading
For more information on legal proceedings and judicial developments, visit the Law section.
Live Poll
Should public figures be held personally liable for defamatory claims they make online?
