A federal judge has thrown out a high-profile defamation lawsuit filed by IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler against Hunter Biden’s attorney Abbe Lowell, ruling that Lowell’s incendiary statements accusing the agents of illegally leaking confidential tax and grand jury materials were merely “legal opinions.”
The decision came from Judge Richard J. Leon, a George W. Bush appointee in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who sided squarely with Lowell and granted the motion to dismiss.
The court also denied the IRS agents’ attempt to amend their complaint, calling it futile.
“The challenged statements are constitutionally protected opinions, and, independently, plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that Lowell acted with actual malice. Further, since plaintiffs’ proposed amendments fail to allege any actionable statements of defamation, the Court denies the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint,” Leon wrote.
Special Agents Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler went public in 2023 with detailed allegations that the DOJ shielded Hunter Biden from standard criminal prosecution for tax evasion and foreign business dealings.
After their explosive testimony, Lowell fired back on behalf of Hunter Biden, sending a barrage of letters to Congress, federal prosecutors, and the media accusing the agents of “criminal acts,” “illegal leaks,” and “felonies” under federal grand jury and taxpayer confidentiality laws.
Shapley and Ziegler sued for defamation, arguing that Lowell’s words destroyed their reputations and careers by falsely portraying them as criminals.
In his 25-page opinion, Judge Leon sided firmly with Lowell, finding that the attorney’s blistering accusations were made “in the course of legal representation” and thus qualified as constitutionally protected opinion, even if “vehement, caustic, and unpleasantly sharp.”
The judge added that because Shapley and Ziegler had “voluntarily thrust themselves into the public controversy” surrounding Hunter Biden’s criminal investigation, they qualified as public figures, requiring them to prove “actual malice.”
Shapley and Ziegler argued they only shared information already released by Congress and did not reveal any confidential taxpayer data.
Read the ruling below:
