Nick Sandmann v. Washington Post: The $250M Defamation Lawsuit — Dismissed, Revived, Then Settled (Full Timeline)

Nick Sandmann v. The Washington Post: What Actually Happened

The defamation lawsuit Nick Sandmann filed against The Washington Post is one of the most misunderstood cases of the last decade — reported as a "$250 million lawsuit," dismissed by a federal judge in 2019, revived on appeal, and finally settled in July 2020 on undisclosed terms. Here is the complete, verified timeline of what happened, and what it says about how defamation cases against media outlets really work.

The Incident: Lincoln Memorial, January 2019

On January 18, 2019, after the Indigenous Peoples March in Washington, D.C., a confrontation went viral: Nicholas Sandmann, a Covington Catholic High School student from Kentucky wearing a MAGA hat, stood face-to-face with Nathan Phillips, a Native American activist beating a drum. Short clips spread across social media within hours, framed by initial context that many outlets later revised: what happened before and after the clips started recording — including "Build the Wall" chants from a third group, the Black Hebrew Israelites — was central to the dispute.

The Washington Post published coverage of the encounter. Sandmann's family claimed the coverage portrayed him, falsely, as the aggressor.

The Lawsuit: $250 Million in Defamation Claims

In February 2019, Sandmann's family sued the Post for $250 million in libel and slander damages, represented by high-profile defamation attorneys. The suit targeted specific statements in the Post's reporting — that Sandmann "blocked" Phillips, "refused to leave," and engaged in racist behavior.

Dismissal — July 2019

On July 26, 2019, U.S. District Judge William O. Bertelsman (E.D. Ky.) dismissed the lawsuit. His ruling held that most of the challenged statements were either substantially true, opinion, or not "of and concerning" a defamatory characterization — and that the Post's reporting, on the whole, was protected. He later dismissed the amended complaint as well.

Revival — the Sixth Circuit Steps In

Sandmann appealed, and in October 2019 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals partially reversed — reinstating claims tied to a handful of specific WaPo statements that, taken in context, could plausibly be read as defamatory. The case was sent back to the district court. That procedural revival — not a finding that the Post defamed anyone — is what set up the settlement.

Settlement — July 2020

On July 24, 2020, the Washington Post and Sandmann settled out of court. Key facts:

• The settlement amount was never disclosed — by either side
• The settlement came weeks before scheduled depositions of Post reporters, which many observers consider the pressure point
• The Post did not apologize or admit wrongdoing as part of the deal
• Sandmann's team simultaneously pursued CNN (settled January 2020, also undisclosed, shortly before his deposition of network personnel) and NBCUniversal (settled 2021, undisclosed)

The Cases That Didn't Settle

Sandmann's legal team sued a series of other outlets — and those cases mostly failed. In July 2022, Judge Bertelsman dismissed defamation suits against five media outlets, and in August 2023 the Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Sandmann's defamation arguments. The pattern: revived claims against the Post and CNN settled before trial; claims against outlets that litigated instead were thrown out and stayed thrown out.

What This Case Actually Teaches

1. "Dismissed" is not always the end. The 2019 dismissal looked final; the Sixth Circuit's partial reversal kept the case alive — and the revived case settled. This is the same dynamic we explain in our roundup of high-profile lawsuits that ended without a settlement: appellate turns can change everything.
2. Settlements are often secret. Neither side ever disclosed the amount paid. Headlines calling it a "$250 million settlement" are wrong — that was the demand, not the outcome.
3. The discovery deadline matters. Both the CNN and WaPo settlements landed right before high-stakes depositions — a reminder that schedule pressure, not courtroom verdicts, drives most case endings.
4. Defamation cases against media companies are hard to win. The claims that survived were narrow (specific factual statements); the broad "the coverage was unfair" theory lost every time it was tested.

FAQ

Q: How much did the Washington Post pay Nick Sandmann?

A: Nobody outside the parties knows — the July 2020 settlement terms were never disclosed. The "$250 million" figure from headlines was the amount demanded in the complaint, not the settlement value.

Q: Did the court find the Washington Post defamed Sandmann?

A: No. The case was dismissed in 2019, partially revived on appeal for a narrow set of statements, and settled before any trial or merits ruling. No court ever found that the Post defamed him.

Q: Why did some outlets settle and others didn't?

A: The settled cases (CNN, WaPo, NBC) were revived on appeal or approaching depositions; the outlets that fought on prevailed with dismissals that the Sixth Circuit affirmed in 2023. Litigation posture and timing — not the underlying merits alone — decided who paid.

This page is updated as new information develops. Last reviewed: September 8, 2026.