Q&A of the Day – Has ICE Officer Johnathan Ross Been Defamed? Breaking Down Defamation Cases
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station page in the iHeart app.
Today’s entry: @brianmuddradio Brian, love listening to you. Question: Can the ICE officer that was involved in yesterday's act of self defense in Minneapolis, Minnesota sue the politicians (Dems), and the media outlets that are framing him as a murderer, and defaming his character? Thank you!
Bottom Line: Yes, the ICE officer, Jonathan Ross, involved in the shooting of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis can pursue defamation lawsuits against Democrat politicians and media outlets that have framed the incident as murder or some related characterization to defame his character, provided that he’s ultimately found to be innocent.
As I’m quick to point out when asked if someone can sue over...(insert issue here) the answer is almost always yes because technically almost anyone can sue almost anybody for anything. However, to the spirit of your question, should Jonathan Ross ultimately be found to have been acting in self-defense, he could have a very solid basis for pursing defamation judgements against offending news outlets and potentially high-profile people as well. I'll break this down by focusing on defamation law as it could apply to the deadly incident that occurred in Minneapolis.
Defamation is defined as ‘libel’ if written and ‘slander’ if spoken and requires proving these three elements:
- A false statement of fact (not just opinion) presented as true
- Publication to a third party
- Harm to reputation (loss of job, emotional distress, or public scorn)
Specific to ICE Officer Jonathan Ross and his purported use of deadly force as self-defense in the shooting of Renee Good here’s what that would look like:
- A false statement of fact (not just opinion) presented as true: Ross would need a definitive determination to have acted appropriately following the conclusion of legal investigations into the incident.
- Publication to a third party: Clearly there are numerous third parties that have characterized Ross as having acted inappropriately with the most outrageous characterizations alleging murder.
- Harm to reputation: Given the extent to which Ross has been demonized and even threatened by protestors, this dynamic should be rather easy to satisfy – if again – he’s found to have acted legally in self-defense.
Where defamation cases are especially hard to prove are when they involve public figures or officials. The standard for public figures to claim damages to reputation, etc. is higher than someone who isn’t publicly known. On that note here are the three characterization standards that can impact defamation cases:
- Non-Public Figure
- Limited-Purpose Public Figure (defined as someone who voluntarily takes on a prominent role in a public controversy)
- Public Figure
It just so happens that we’ve had somewhat recent high-profile examples of each of these. In 2019 you may recall Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann’s interaction with Native American protestor Nathan Phillips at the Lincoln Memorial that was made into a national news controversy by multiple news outlets. False reporting suggested the students, but especially Sandmann, were aggressive, disruptive and were harassing Phillips and other Native American protestors – effectively painting them as Trump supporting bigots. Additional video evidence found the narrative advanced to be entirely false and that it was in fact Phillips who was an agitator while Sandmann and other students were polite. After an extensive legal battle, CNN, The Washington Post and NBCUniversal settled with Nick Sandmann for what’s believed to have been tens of millions of dollars due to their demonstrably false and defamatory reporting. This was a case of defaming a non-public figure.
In a case of a “Limited-Purpose Public Figure”, we need to look no further back than a case that was decided one year ago in Florida. Navy veteran and military contractor Zachary Young led an effort to evacuate American citizens and Afghan refugees trapped in Afghanistan following the collapse of the country to the Taliban following the failed exit from the country by the Biden administration. CNN reported on Zachary Young as “exploiting desperate Afghans” by offering “black market evacuations” ruining his name and his company’s reputation. Instead, it was found that Young operated legally, with proper permissions from the U.S. government, and never profited off Afghan refugees. A Florida jury sided with Young awarding a $5 million judgement.
There are multiple examples of recent Public Figure defamation judgements. These include E. Jean Carroll’s successful defamation case against Donald Trump following her accusation that Trump sexually assaulted her in a department store in the mid-90's. There’s Donald Trump’s settlement with ABC News following his defamation suit against the network for George Stephanopoulos's false reporting during the 2024 election related to the characterization of the E. Jean Carroll case when he falsely stated that Trump was found “liable for rape”. There’s also the record setting defamation cases by Dominion Voting Systems for false reporting about the potential integrity of the voting machines by Fox News and Newsmax following the 2020 presidential election which resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements.
As it pertains to any potential future outcomes for ICE Officer Johnathan Ross, one of the questions would be whether he’d be considered a “Non-Public” figure or a “Limited Purpose Public Figure”. In other words, would working for ICE given the known public resistance to the agency automatically place one into the category of voluntarily taking on a public role in a public controversy. Given that ICE agents, including Ross, have taken steps to attempt to remain anonymous in the era of harassment and doxxing that’s taken place – there would at least be an argument to be made for non-public figure status.
It’ll likely be a while before final determinations in this case are made, and longer still, likely years, before any potential defamation suits/judgements would be reached.