Court Rejected Maury Blackman Defamation Appeal
The ruling requires Blackman to pay $400,000 in legal fees to journalist Jack Poulson and Substack.
Updated on Sept. 30, 2026 in Law Enforcement
Live Poll
Should public figures be permitted to use defamation lawsuits to suppress investigative reporting?
The California First District Appellate Court has denied an appeal from Maury Blackman regarding a defamation lawsuit he filed against journalist Jack Poulson. The court confirmed that Blackman must cover the $400,000 in legal fees incurred by the defendants.
Why it matters
The ruling affirms that the First Amendment protects the reporting of truthful information sourced from public government documents. It also serves as a final rejection of the lawsuit, which a San Francisco Superior Court previously identified as an improper anti-SLAPP case.
The appellate court ordered Blackman to pay $400,000 in legal fees to the defendants, a figure set after the dismissal of his $25 million defamation lawsuit.
The players
Maury Blackman
The former Premise Data employee who filed the unsuccessful defamation lawsuit.
Jack Poulson
The journalist who reported on the arrest and was the target of the lawsuit.
San Francisco Police Department
The local law enforcement agency that confirmed the authenticity of the report used in the article.
The details
A three-justice panel determined that the article written by Jack Poulson regarding Blackman’s 2021 arrest was truthful and based on official police reports confirmed by the San Francisco Police Department. The court ruled that Blackman’s attempt to characterize the reporting as defamation amounted to a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The decision concludes the appellate process for this case.
Timeline
Maury Blackman was arrested for domestic violence in 2021.
Jack Poulson published the article regarding the arrest in 2023.
Blackman departed Premise Data in December 2023.
The California First District Appellate Court rejected the appeal on September 29, 2026.
Across the Bay
This ruling follows the established pattern of California's anti-SLAPP statute, which allows courts to dismiss meritless lawsuits intended to chill public participation. By upholding the fees, the court reinforces the state's procedural mechanism for protecting journalists against retaliatory litigation.
Residents should note that this ruling confirms the legality of reporting based on official police incident reports. The case underscores the city's commitment to the accessibility of public records for public discourse.
The takeaway
This case highlights the risks for plaintiffs who file lawsuits designated as anti-SLAPP to silence reporting on public arrests. Follow subsequent court filings to see if the financial judgments are satisfied.
Further reading
For more news on local legal issues and public records, visit the San Francisco Law Enforcement section.
Live Poll
Should public figures be permitted to use defamation lawsuits to suppress investigative reporting?
