Comedian John Oliver Wins Defamation Lawsuit Based On Last Week Tonight Segment Criticizing Iowa’s Medicaid Privatization Program
By Justin T. Kelton, Abrams Fensterman, LLP
Comedian John Oliver, who hosts the weekly television show, Last Week Tonight, is known for biting satire that draws millions of viewers. But not everyone is a fan. Oliver and his production company were recently sued in the Southern District of New York by a doctor who objected to an episode that criticized Iowa’s Medicaid privatization program, which resulted in cancellation of nursing services for certain highly vulnerable patients. As discussed below, the plaintiff claimed Oliver defamed him by criticizing his support for the Iowa program, but United States District Judge Ronnie Abrams dismissed the suit, holding that Last Week Tonight’s coverage was fully protected under New York law.
Background Of The Lawsuit
In Morley v. Oliver, 2026 WL 1552346 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2026), plaintiff Brian Morley, a doctor who worked for AmeriHealth Caritas, the Managed Care Organization (“MCO”) managing Iowa’s privatized Medicaid program, sued comedian John Oliver and his production company, Partially Important Productions. Morley alleged that the defendants defamed him during an April 2024 episode critiquing Iowa’s Medicaid privatization. Id. at *1. The episode highlighted certain policies that caused Medicaid patients to lose coverage. Id. at *2.
During the episode, Oliver criticized the cancellation of bathing and diaper-changing services for a man with cerebral palsy. Id. at *1. Oliver stated that Morley had “explain[ed] in a hearing about a similar patient, just what the corporate thinking was about the necessity of keeping people clean.” Id. Oliver then played a clip of Morley’s testimony about another individual with cerebral palsy, in which Morley stated: “People have bowel movements every day where they don’t completely clean themselves…. People are allowed to be dirty…. You know, I would allow him to be a little dirty for a couple of days.” Id.
Morley sued and claimed he was defamed because the defendants likened the man for whom diaper-changing services were cancelled to the man about whom Morley had testified. Id. He also asserted that the show’s selective excerpting and the “juxtaposition of video, audio, and Oliver’s words” defamed him by suggesting that he (i) illegally denied services to patients, and (ii) testified that patients can be left in their own fecal matter for days. Id.
The Court Grants John Oliver’s Motion To Dismiss
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the disputed segment was substantially accurate, constituted nonactionable opinion, and/or was protected by New York’s fair report privilege. Id. at *3.
The Court began by summarizing New York law that a defamatory statement must be an assertion of fact, rather than opinion, and that “truth is an absolute, unqualified defense to a civil defamation action and … substantial truth is all that is required.” Id. at *3-4 (citing authorities).
The Court also discussed New York’s fair report privilege. Under New York Civil Rights Law § 74, “[a] civil action cannot be maintained against any person … or corporation, for the publication of a fair and true report of any judicial proceeding, legislative proceeding or other official proceeding … which is a fair and true headnote of the statement published.” Id. at *4.
Judge Abrams then turned to the specific claims in the lawsuit. The Court first held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for express (as opposed to implied) defamation because the claims are “based on substantially accurate statements that are not reasonably susceptible of defamatory connotations and thus covered by the fair report privilege.” Id. at *5.
Additionally, the Court found that certain statements—that the situation was “heartbreaking,” that MCOs unfairly prioritized cost-cutting over patient wellbeing, that “cost cutting” was “absolutely enraging,” that “it made me want to punch a hole in the wall,” and that an initial denial of care, even if later reversed, was “a disgrace”—were expressions of nonactionable opinion, as opposed to statements of fact. Id. at *6, *9. Judge Abrams noted that “speculat[ing] about motivations” is not actionable in defamation. Id. at *6 (citing Cummings v. City of New York, 2020 WL 882335, at *22 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2020)).
The Court also rejected Morley’s argument that Oliver misleadingly excerpted testimony to imply that Morley’s testimony “was about an incontinent man in diapers incapable of bathing himself,” whereas Morley was testifying about a different individual who did not require diapers.
The Court held that the statement that the two individuals were “similar” was substantially accurate because both individuals had “cerebral palsy and significant mobility issues.” Id. at *7. Thus, Judge Abrams found that the two individuals were “similar, even if their circumstances were not identical.” Id. at *7.
Judge Abrams added: “The Court refuses to accept the notion that an ordinary viewer would view two patients—both of whom have cerebral palsy and trouble wiping themselves and keeping themselves fully clean of fecal matter, but only one of whom actually wore a diaper—as anything but ‘similar.’” Id. at *13.
In concluding its analysis of this issue, the Court also rejected Morley’s argument that the fair report privilege was inapplicable because Oliver’s statement constituted Oliver’s “analysis and commentary,” rather than a report of the proceeding itself. Id. at *8.
The Court held that “[a]nalysis that does not use the words of a judicial proceeding verbatim is, however, still protected by the privilege so long as ‘it fairly characterizes some aspect of a judicial proceeding.’” Id. (citations omitted).
Finally, the Court considered whether the segment could support a claim for defamation by implication. Morley alleged two defamatory inferences: first, that he “illegally denied care to” the two individuals, and second, that he “testified that it is ‘okay’ for individuals who wear diapers and/or cannot bathe themselves” to not be clean “and to otherwise be left sitting in their own bowel movements for days.” Id. at *11.
The Court found no defamation by implication because Oliver never suggested that Morley, as opposed to the MCO, was responsible for the patient’s initial loss of care, and because Oliver was criticizing examples of “cost cutting,” but did not suggest that the examples were “illegal” denials. Id. at *11-12.
And, the Court noted, “Morley did testify that he ‘would allow’ an individual with cerebral palsy . . . to have fecal matter on him for more than one day.” Id. at *13.
Judge Abrams concluded, “[i]n the Court’s view, that would have no materially worse effect on the average viewer than the implication Morley alleges Oliver wrongfully made: that Morley thought it was alright for an individual with cerebral palsy to sit in a dirty diaper for more than one day.” Id.
Conclusion
The decision in Morley v. Oliver protects satirists and serious commentators alike who use public records as a basis for criticizing government programs. Judge Abrams’ holding reinforces the doctrine that courts evaluating defamation claims will look to the overall “gist” of statements, and determine whether they are “substantially accurate,” even if they do not quote the underlying records verbatim. The key is to ground commentary in official reports and testimony, and preserve the essential truth of the narrative.
Justin T. Kelton is a partner and Co-Chair of the litigation department at Abrams Fensterman, LLP. His practice focuses on complex commercial litigation and high-stakes defamation matters. He can be reached at 718-215-5300 or [email protected].
