U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART VI— PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS › Chapter CHAPTER 181— FOREIGN JUDGMENTS

28 U.S.C. § 4101

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
In this chapter:(1)Defamation.—The term “defamation” means any action or other proceeding for defamation, libel, slander, or similar claim alleging that forms of speech are false, have caused damage to reputation or emotional distress, have presented any person in a false light, or have resulted in criticism, dishonor, or condemnation of any person.(2)Domestic court.—The term “domestic court” means a Federal court or a court of any State.(3)Foreign court.—The term “foreign court” means a court, administrative body, or other tribunal of a foreign country.(4)Foreign judgment.—The term “foreign judgment” means a final judgment rendered by a foreign court.(5)State.—The term “State” means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.(6)United states person.—The term “United States person” means—(A) a United States citizen;(B) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence to the United States;(C) an alien lawfully residing in the United States at the time that the speech that is the subject of the foreign defamation action was researched, prepared, or disseminated; or(D) a business entity incorporated in, or with its primary location or place of operation in, the United States.(Added Pub. L. 111–223, § 3(a), Aug. 10, 2010, 124 Stat. 2381.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesFindings

Pub. L. 111–223, § 2, Aug. 10, 2010, 124 Stat. 2380, provided that: “Congress finds the following:“(1) The freedom of speech and the press is enshrined in the first amendment to the Constitution, and is necessary to promote the vigorous dialogue necessary to shape public policy in a representative democracy.“(2) Some persons are obstructing the free expression rights of United States authors and publishers, and in turn chilling the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States interest of the citizenry in receiving information on matters of importance, by seeking out foreign jurisdictions that do not provide the full extent of free-speech protections to authors and publishers that are available in the United States, and suing a United States author or publisher in that foreign jurisdiction.“(3) These foreign defamation lawsuits not only suppress the free speech rights of the defendants to the suit, but inhibit other written speech that might otherwise have been written or published but for the fear of a foreign lawsuit.“(4) The threat of the libel laws of some foreign countries is so dramatic that the United Nations Human Rights Committee examined the issue and indicated that in some instances the law of libel has served to discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work. The advent of the internet and the international distribution of foreign media also create the danger that one country’s unduly restrictive libel law will affect freedom of expression worldwide on matters of valid public interest.“(5) Governments and courts of foreign countries scattered around the world have failed to curtail this practice of permitting libel lawsuits against United States persons within their courts, and foreign libel judgments inconsistent with United States first amendment protections are increasingly common.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 154 cases (123 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: Kaul v. Christie, 372 F. Supp. 3d 206 (D.N.J. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kaul v. Christie, 372 F. Supp. 3d 206 (D.N.J. 2019). · cites it 2× “C, § 1346, against the same parties as Count 4; • Count Seven : Defamation, in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 4101 , against Governor Christie, New Jersey, Chiesa, Solomon, GEICO, Allstate, TD Bank, Kothari, Rutgers, Gonzalez, Dr.”
Hassell v. Bird, 420 P.3d 776 (Cal. 2018). “Specifically, in 2010 Congress enacted the Securing the Protection of Our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (SPEECH Act), 28 U.S.C. § 4101 et seq. This measure responded to concerns that defamation judgments were being obtained in countries that did not…”
Trout Point Lodge, Ltd. v. Doug Handshoe, 729 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 2013). “2380 , reproduced in the Notes section of 28 U.S.C. § 4101 . It further found that “[gjovernments and courts of foreign countries scattered around the world have failed to curtail this practice .”
Soojung Jang v. Trs. of St. Johnsbury Acad., 331 F. Supp. 3d 312 (D. Vt. 2018). · cites it 2× “2380 , codified as 28 U.S.C. §§ 4101 - 4105. (Doc. 30 at 1, 4.”
Fort Peck Hous. Auth. v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (D. Colo. 2006). “2 The legislative purpose of NAHASDA is articulated in the Congressional findings set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 4101 : (1) the Federal Government has a responsibility to promote the general welfare of the Nation— (A) by using Federal resources to aid families and individuals seeking…”
Handshoe v. Perret, 270 F. Supp. 3d 915 (S.D. Miss. 2017). “41135 is REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and unenforceable in the United States of America,” under the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act, 28 U.S.C. § 4101 et seq. (“SPEECH Act”), id.”
Natasha DeLima v. Google, Inc., 2021 DNH 025P (D.N.H. 2021). · cites it 2× “c) Defamation In her complaint, DeLima summarily alleges that Defendants “defamed” her, committed “libel” and violated 28 U.S.C. § 4101 , without providing any factual support for these conclusions.”
Mitchell v. DHR, No. 1:20-cv-00411 (S.D. Ala. Oct. 28, 2020). · cites it 14× “The Court explicitly informed the plaintiff that his reference to 28 U.S.C. § 4101 did not provide a jurisdictional basis for his action and that the Constitution is not violated by a mere defamation made by a public official.”
Goodall v. Casper, No. 3:22-cv-00543, 2023 WL 3553130 (W.D. Ky. May 18, 2023). · cites it 6× “§ 371 : Conspiracy to Commit Fraud; and 28 U.S.C. § 4101 . Id. at 3 . She also asserts additional claims against Judges Delahanty, Gibson, and Leibson in their individual capacities under 42 U.”
Gray v. Winton Woods City Schs., No. 1:23-cv-00553 (S.D. Ohio June 7, 2024). · cites it 6× “In the Complaint, Gray raises six categories of claims: (1) two defamation claims under 28 U.S.C. § 4101 and Ohio common law,5 (Doc.”
Baker, No. 2:25-cv-01989 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 23, 2025). · cites it 6× “Baker 8 raises claims against Defendants for (1) defamation, 28 U.S.C. § 4101 ; (2) violations of 9 Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) regulations; (3) violations of the FHA, 42 U.”
McArthur v. C-Town Super Mkt., No. 3:21-cv-00972, 2022 WL 2981573 (D. Conn. July 28, 2022). · cites it 5× “§ 45c; (3) defamation, in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 4101 or 47 U.S.C. § 230 ; (4) “public humiliation”; (5) harassment, in violation of the “Code of Civil Procedure Chapter 3 Injunction 527.”
Show all 154 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.