Court affirms core claims in Andrews v. D’Souza as case heads to trial on Defamation and Klan Act claims

    Atlanta, Georgia — A federal judge has rejected summary judgment motions by the creators of 2000 Mules, ruling that their statements about Georgia voter Mark Andrews were false as a matter of law and allowing the case to proceed to trial on claims of defamation and violations of the Ku Klux Klan Act.

    “This ruling makes clear what we’ve known all along: the defendants behind the 2000 Mules conspiracy theory falsely accused our client of voter fraud without any proof to support their claims, ” said Jane Bentrott, counsel at Protect Democracy and lead counsel for this case. “The court found sufficient evidence that a jury could find that they knowingly advanced this false narrative for profit, harming both Mr. Andrews and public confidence in our elections. We look forward to holding them accountable at trial for manufacturing and weaponizing lies about elections to intimidate voters and undermine democracy.”

    Key Findings from Judge Steven D. Grimberg’s Ruling:

    • On Falsity: The court found that defendants “do not contest that the statements…accusing [Mr. Andrews] of criminal conduct—including of being a ‘ballot mule’—are false. Such statements are defamatory as a matter of law.”
    • On Lack of Proof for 2000 Mules: “Defendants admit that they never had any evidence that Andrews was paid to deposit any ballots or that he went to any drop box more than once; that he ever went to any non-profit to pick up ballots; or that he was ever at a violent riot. Nor did the TTV Defendants ever geotrack Andrews’s cell phone or any other device linked to him.”
    • On Defendants’ Conduct: The court found sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude “that Defendants worked together, not just to make and promote the Movie, but to do so for the purpose of advancing a knowingly false narrative about criminal ballot mules that intentionally defamed Andrews.”

    The ruling found that there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that defendants knew “the surveillance footage of Andrews was never geotracked” and “there was no video evidence supporting their mules theory” but proceeded anyway.

    What’s next

    The case will now proceed to trial, where Protect Democracy will seek to hold Dinesh D’Souza, True the Vote, and the other defendants accountable for their voter intimidation and false statements about Mr. Andrews and the 2020 election.