Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the current U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary and a once-prominent presidential candidate, has suffered a decisive courtroom defeat in his years-long battle against a Maine blogger who criticized his vaccine views and public appearances. The case, which drew national attention for its implications on free speech and press protections, concluded on September 30, 2025, when a Maine judge dismissed Kennedy’s libel lawsuit against David Vickrey, a retired businessman and progressive blogger from Cape Elizabeth.
The saga began in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, when Kennedy, already a polarizing figure for his outspoken skepticism toward vaccines, found himself embroiled in controversy over his participation in a massive anti-lockdown rally in Berlin in August 2020. The event, attended by coronavirus skeptics, conspiracy theorists, and—most notably—right-wing extremists and neo-Nazi groups, became a flashpoint for criticism. According to The Daily Beast, Kennedy’s appearance as a speaker at the rally was widely reported, with images showing him addressing a crowd that included members of groups like the AfD and NDP, both known for their far-right affiliations.
David Vickrey, writing as a community blogger for Daily Kos, summarized local news coverage of the Berlin rally and headlined his post, “Anti-Vaxxer RFK JR. joins neo-Nazis in massive Berlin ‘Anti-Corona’ Protest.” That blunt framing set off a legal firestorm. In 2021, Kennedy launched a defamation suit against Daily Kos, seeking to unmask Vickrey’s identity. After a protracted legal battle spanning multiple states and appeals, Kennedy’s legal team eventually identified Vickrey and sued him directly for libel in Maine.
The crux of Kennedy’s argument was that Vickrey had made false and damaging statements about him on social media, particularly regarding the Berlin rally and Kennedy’s vaccine stances during his 2024 presidential campaign. Kennedy accused Vickrey of claiming he “helped cause the Samoa Measles Outbreak,” “opposed all vaccines,” “expressed dangerous vaccine conspiracies that caused the death of 234,000 Americans,” and, most explosively, that he “wanted to cause the death of all Black people” and “said COVID-19 was designed to save Jewish people.”
But as Portland Press Herald and The Daily Beast report, the court found Kennedy’s claims to be without merit. Justice Thomas McKeon, a Democrat-appointed judge, granted summary judgment in Vickrey’s favor, meticulously dismantling each of Kennedy’s allegations. The judge noted that Kennedy “failed to bring enough evidence to support his libel claims,” and that the facts were not in dispute, allowing the court to rule as a matter of law.
One of the most striking aspects of the ruling was the court’s handling of the Berlin rally controversy. Kennedy’s legal team did not dispute that he spoke at a protest organized and attended by groups with neo-Nazi affiliations. Instead, they argued that it was defamatory to infer that Kennedy had joined those organizations as a member. The judge rejected this argument, writing, “Plaintiff offers no evidence that there exists a defamatory implication that plaintiff joining the protest as a speaker meant that he joined the sponsoring group as a member of that group.” He added, “The only inference that could be made is that Kennedy and these groups shared the same position on government COVID vaccination requirements… The court does not see a defamatory implication.”
As for the more incendiary claims, the court found that they were based on gross misrepresentations of Vickrey’s actual conduct. For example, the allegation that Vickrey claimed Kennedy “wanted to cause the death of all Black people” was, in reality, nothing more than Vickrey posting a link—without comment—to an opinion piece published by TheGrio titled “Anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is harming black people—and his family legacy—with his vaccine misinformation campaign.” The judge noted that Kennedy “does not offer sworn evidence to the contrary.” Similarly, the claim about COVID-19 being “designed to save Jewish people” stemmed from Vickrey sharing a Washington Post article headlined “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggests COVID was designed to spare Jews and Chinese People,” again without additional commentary. The judge emphasized that Kennedy’s team could not provide “admissible record evidence” disproving that Vickrey had simply repeated third-party content without embellishment.
Throughout the proceedings, Vickrey maintained that he never claimed Kennedy was a Nazi, only that he joined neo-Nazis at their rally—a statement that was factually true and uncontested by Kennedy. The judge’s ruling made clear that sharing a platform with controversial groups does not, in itself, constitute defamation, particularly when the facts are not in dispute.
Reflecting on his legal victory, Vickrey told the Portland Press Herald, “I’m glad the court decided in my favor. There was really no merit to the whole case.” His comments echoed a broader sentiment among free speech advocates who had rallied to his defense. In fact, Daily Kos and ten other organizations, including The New York Times, filed amicus briefs in support of Vickrey, arguing that the case was a textbook example of a frivolous lawsuit aimed at chilling criticism and press freedom.
The legal battle was not limited to Vickrey alone. Kennedy’s original suit against Daily Kos remains on appeal in New York, where the publisher seeks to establish a precedent that would shield media outlets from similar lawsuits. According to Daily Kos, the ongoing appeal is “aimed at securing a New York precedent to shield media outlets from frivolous suits like this.” The case has become a touchstone in the debate over so-called SLAPP suits—strategic lawsuits against public participation—that are often used by public figures to silence critics through costly and time-consuming litigation.
Meanwhile, Kennedy’s defeat in Maine has been interpreted as a victory for the First Amendment. The judge’s ruling affirms that criticism of public officials, especially when rooted in publicly available facts and third-party reporting, is not only protected but essential to democratic discourse. As The Daily Beast put it, “So chalk one up for the First Amendment.”
The implications of the case extend beyond the individuals involved. By refusing to deny the central facts and failing to produce credible evidence of defamation, Kennedy’s legal strategy backfired, reinforcing the principle that public figures cannot use the courts to suppress criticism grounded in truth. The court’s decision also highlights the importance of distinguishing between reporting on associations and making accusations of membership or endorsement—an important nuance in the age of viral misinformation and online commentary.
For Vickrey, the ordeal has been a long and taxing journey, but one that ended with vindication. For Kennedy, the ruling is a stark reminder that the legal system offers little refuge for public officials seeking to silence critics without evidence. And for media outlets and bloggers everywhere, the outcome serves as a powerful precedent affirming their right to report, criticize, and, when necessary, stand up to those in power.
With the Maine case closed, all eyes now turn to New York, where the broader battle for press protections and free speech continues.
