Michael Mann and National Review reach settlement in decade-long libel lawsuit.
A protracted legal dispute extending over 13 years concerning blog posts about climate scientist Michael Mann has reached a tentative conclusion, signaling a significant moment in defamation law and academic freedom. Mann, a prominent figure in climate science, recently settled with the National Review, agreeing to withdraw his claims in exchange for the conservative publication relinquishing rights to 1,000 in legal fees that had been awarded to it earlier in the proceedings.
Court records indicate that Mann formally dismissed his appeal on the same day the settlement was announced. The contentious legal battle began in 2012 when Mann filed a libel lawsuit against the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute due to posts authored by right-wing writers Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn. These articles made pejorative assertions against Mann’s research, with Simberg controversially likening Mann to Jerry Sandusky, a former Penn State football coach implicated in a high-profile abuse scandal.
In 2024, a Washington, D.C., jury initially ruled in Mann’s favor, awarding him a verdict of million against the bloggers. However, in a twist, D.C. Superior Court Judge Alfred S. Irving later reduced this verdict dramatically to ,000. Additionally, Mann faced sanctions for presenting misleading information during the trial, leading to an order that required him to pay his opponents’ legal fees totaling million.
The judge’s ruling also entitled the National Review to over 0,000 in legal fees under a District of Columbia law designed to protect entities from retaliatory lawsuits. With the new settlement, Mann agreed to cease further legal actions against the National Review regarding the posts, while the publication in turn withdrew its request for the previously awarded legal fees.
It is crucial to note that while this particular phase of the litigation has concluded, key findings remain intact. Notably, the jury’s verdict identified the posts as false, defamatory, and published with malicious intent. Commentary from Mann highlighted that, despite the settlement, the essential determination of the jury stands.
Mann, who continues to hold his position at the University of Pennsylvania as a professor and the director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media, has been an outspoken figure on issues concerning climate science and policy. He recently stepped down from his administrative role as vice provost for climate science, citing conflicts with the university’s neutrality policy. Mann has attracted attention for controversial remarks in the past and continues to actively engage in public discourse, including the recent release of his book “Science Under Siege.”
This series of events underscores the fraught intersection of academia, political discourse, and legal frameworks surrounding free speech and defamation, setting a noteworthy precedent for future cases involving public figures and media representations.
