The Satanic Temple v. Newsweek: Anti-SLAPP, Actual Malice, and a Case That Wouldn’t Quite Catch Fire

he New York anti-SLAPP statute is designed to allow early dismissal of meritless defamation lawsuits against the press which are often filed by an offended party not to win on the merits, but to chill future speech and burden defendants with unnecessary legal fees.

In The Satanic Temple Inc. v. Newsweek, LLC, No. 25-868, 2026 WL 1502095, *1 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 2026) the Second Circuit affirmed the Southern District of New York’s finding of when to apply New York’s anti-SLAPP statute and how to apply its heightened standard of fault, actual malice, when reviewing published articles.

The underlying action was brought against Newsweek based on an October 2021 article written by Julia Duin, a religious reporter, entitled “Orgies, Harassment, Fraud: Satanic Temple Rocked by Accusations Lawsuit”. The article focused on The Satanic Temple and the many defamation lawsuits brought by it against its members who made sexual assault allegations against chapter heads. Duin interviewed two anonymous and two pseudonymous former members who alleged that the Temple protected men accused of sexual misconduct. Duin also reviewed text messages from a former member and a Temple leader about the mishandling of internal complaints of inappropriate sexual comments. Duin additionally interviewed Lucien Greaves, the co-founder of the Temple, its general counsel, and an author of a book about the Temple’s history. Greaves denied any truth about the members’ complaints, but Duin did not explicitly ask Greaves about the specific quotes she intended to use in the article.

The day after the article was published, the Temple sent a retraction demand to Newsweek claiming more than twenty statements in the article were false and defamatory. After Newsweek did not retract the story, The Temple filed suit in the District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that twenty-two separate statements were defamatory and in violation of New York law.

At the District Court level, the court granted Duin’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Additionally, the District Court partially granted Newsweek’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for all claims except for one statement made by a pseudonymous source which stated:

[Pseudonym] soon left the group, then was leaked material about “leaders posing happily with major alt-right media figures,” he wrote. “Accounts of sexual abuse being covered up in ways that were more than anecdotal. Dozens of people kicked out for asking for financial records from this alleged-non-profit organization.”

In 2025, both defendants moved for summary judgment and the District Court granted Newsweek’s motion, concluding that New York’s anti-SLAPP statute mandated applying a higher standard of fault to support its claims which the Temple failed to establish. The Temple appealed and argued that the New York anti-SLAPP statute was not applicable.

On appeal, The Second Circuit panel of judges gave a fiery endorsement of a strong application of the protections of New York’s anti-SLAPP statute for news organizations and reporters. New York’s anti-SLAPP statute protects any communication in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest, defined as any subject other than a purely private matter. The Second Circuit affirmed that the Newsweek article was covered under New York’s anti-SLAPP statute since the article was posted on Newsweek’s public website and the statement addressed the Temple’s failure to report sexual abuse, a clear area of public interest.

Once the court determined that the threshold was met, it then turned to determining whether the Temple proved actual malice by demonstrating that Newsweek acted with knowledge of a false statement or with reckless disregard of the truth, the test established by the seminal New York Times Company v. Sullivan case.

Using this framework, the court found in Newsweek’s favor in each instance. First, the Temple claimed Newsweek failed to follow its own editorial standards. However, the court determined that this alleged departure from journalistic standards was only proof of negligence, not the higher actual malice standard.

Second, the Temple alleged that Duin and her editors were biased against the Temple, but the court found that without evidence of a reckless disregard of the truth, any alleged ill will against the Temple alone was not sufficient to demonstrate actual malice.

Third, the Temple claimed Newsweek’s use of a hostile and pseudonymous source demonstrated actual malice, yet the court also found that to be insufficient to meet the higher standard since the source was corroborated by additional evidence.

Lastly, the Temple alleged Newsweek’s shortcomings in its fact-checking constituted actual malice. Here too, the court disagreed and held that these actions were at most negligent as there is no duty to investigate falsity if there was no doubt the statement was truthful.

Ultimately, the court affirmed the district court’s ruling on summary judgment and concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Newsweek acted with actual malice and while the reporting may not have been perfect, imperfect reporting was not enough to condemn Newsweek.

Overall, this case is a win for the media industry in New York. By applying the actual malice standard established in New York Times Company v. Sullivan to the analysis of the New York anti-SLAPP statute, the Second Circuit strengthened the protections of the statute for reporters and news organizations and continued the precedent of barring lawsuits targeted at preventing reporting on issues of public concern. While publishers should be mindful of journalistic standards and strive to publish truthful articles, this case demonstrates that mere negligence is not enough to lose the protection of anti-SLAPP laws. So, even when publishing articles on subjects that may be controversial, or downright devilish, publishers can rely on the First Amendment to shield them from harassing lawsuits by offended subjects.