A state appeals court upheld a lower court ruling that threw out a libel lawsuit filed by former Rep. Darrell Issa against his 2016 re-election opponent over two campaign commercials aired in the last weeks of the tight race.

In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel affirmed a March 2017 ruling by San Diego Superior Court Judge Richard E.L. Strauss that dismissed the suit under the state’s anti-SLAPP law, a measure designed to stop lawsuits that were brought in order to dissuade people from voicing critical opinions on public issues.

Issa, a Vista Republican, initially sought $10 million in the suit. He defeated Democrat Doug Applegate by 1,621 votes in the 2016 election, the closest congressional race in the country. Issa did not seek re-election in 2018 and was nominated in September to be director of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency by President Donald Trump.

At issue in the lawsuit were two campaign commercials. One made the allegation that Issa had profited personally from his time in Congress and referenced a 2011 New York Times article that examined the congressman’s finances. Issa has long disputed the accuracy of that report, and while the newspaper had to make several corrections, it never retracted the article and Issa never sued the paper over it.


The second attacked his voting record and commentary in Congress on legislation that would pay additional health care expenses for 9/11 first responders. He said the ad twisted his remarks to make it appear he was opposed to providing healthcare to first responders to the Sept. 11, 2001 attack.

Overall, the appeals court concluded the suit was correctly dismissed because Issa could not show in either ad that the “statements about which he complains are demonstrably false statements of fact.”

As to the first commercial, the panel said the ad was well within the range of “fair commentary,” and that its main assertion — that the article in the New York Times said Issa “gamed the system to line his own pockets”— was “substantially true” and not libelous. The second ad did not distort what Issa’s comments were so that it was “provably false,” the court said.

A lawyer for Issa did not respond to a request for comment.


In the ruling from the lower court in 2017, Issa was ordered to pay his opponent more than more than $45,000 in attorney fees and other legal costs incurred as a result of the lawsuit.


Twitter: @gregmoran

greg.moran@sduniontribune.com