Why Marco Polo’s Supreme Court Case Is a National Emergency for Free Speech
Reply Brief just filed: California’s anti-SLAPP law — meant to protect speech — was weaponized by powerful Democrats to crush a small nonprofit exposing the Biden family.
I’ve been in this fight for truth since 2014—digging into stories the mainstream won’t touch, holding power to account, and shining a light on corruption wherever it hides. Today, I’m calling your attention to a case that cuts right to the heart of why we do this work: Garrett M. Ziegler and ICU, LLC (d/b/a “Marco Polo”) v. P. Kevin Morris. It’s now before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Certiorari, and the Reply Brief for Petitioners (just filed May 8, 2026) lays it out crystal clear.
This isn’t a typical “procedural spat” in California courts. This is lawfare—weaponized litigation designed to bankrupt, exhaust, and silence a small nonprofit doing exactly what the First Amendment exists to protect: core political reporting and newsgathering on matters of massive public concern. And it exposes how California’s vaunted “anti-SLAPP” statute, meant to shield speech, was twisted here into a tool that prolonged the abuse instead.
Let me break it down for you, step by step, because the stakes couldn’t be higher for every independent journalist, researcher, activist, and citizen who dares speak truth to power.
The Players and the Speech at Issue
Marco Polo isn’t some shadowy operation. It’s a 501(c)(3) nonprofit founded by Garrett Ziegler—a former Trump White House aide—dedicated to exposing corruption and blackmail through meticulous research and public records. Their work centered on the Hunter Biden laptop: materials of undeniable national significance involving the son of the then-President (and now involving his inner circle).
The speech? Political reporting and commentary published online and in print. It addressed individuals “closely connected to the most powerful levels of government.” As the Reply Brief rightly notes, this occupies “the highest rung of First Amendment protection” and falls into no recognized exception.
Enter P. Kevin Morris—Hunter Biden’s high-powered attorney, benefactor (he reportedly loaned Hunter millions), and a Hollywood-connected figure. In 2023, Morris sued Ziegler and Marco Polo in Los Angeles Superior Court. The claims included civil harassment, criminal impersonation (under Penal Code § 529), false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. At the core: allegations that Ziegler (or someone tied to Marco Polo) impersonated a Democratic donor to extract info about the laptop, then “doxed” Morris and subjected him to harassment.
The trial court and parties conceded the speech implicated protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16). Petitioners met their Prong 1 burden. The burden then shifted to Morris to show his claims had both minimal merit (evidentiary) and legal sufficiency.
Here’s where it goes off the rails.
How Anti-SLAPP Became the Problem, Not the Solution
Anti-SLAPP laws exist to quickly dismiss meritless suits that chill public participation—exactly the kind of strategic lawsuit against public participation this one appeared to be. Petitioners filed the special motion to strike on June 20, 2023. The trial court didn’t rule until October 13, 2023. California Supreme Court denied review on November 12, 2025—more than two years later. Morris then tried to voluntarily dismiss the entire complaint less than a month after that.
No trial ever happened. But the parties burned through hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs over nearly three years. Compelled affidavits. Massive legal bills. Years of uncertainty for a small nonprofit.
The Reply Brief nails the constitutional failure: “The anti-SLAPP statute is designed to prevent this type of protracted, burdensome litigation involving protected speech. Its failure here raises important First Amendment questions that warrant this Court’s review.”
Even more damning: The claims rested on criminal statutes lacking any express private right of action. One such claim was struck; a materially similar one was allowed to proceed. The California courts, per the brief, misallocated the burden—putting it on Petitioners instead of requiring Morris to prove legal sufficiency. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found Petitioners had “forfeited” the argument despite the statute’s plain text placing the burden on the plaintiff.
This isn’t neutral procedure. It’s a blueprint for suppression: “using state civil procedure to burden, punish, and chill disfavored political speech by out-of-state defendants without the constitutional safeguards that ordinarily restrain the government.”
Sound familiar? It should. This is the same playbook we’ve seen against other truth-tellers—prolonged litigation not to win on the merits, but to bleed the target dry.
The brief ties it directly to this Court’s unanimous holding in National Rifle Ass’n of America v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024): Government (or here, courts enabling private actors) can’t use threats of legal sanctions or coercion to suppress disfavored speech. Allowing baseless claims predicated on criminal statutes to survive anti-SLAPP review does exactly that.
Why This Case Matters Nationally—and to Every One of Us
The Petition doesn’t attack the facial validity of California’s anti-SLAPP law. It challenges its application in this case, where it failed to protect core political speech and newsgathering. And that failure has national implications.
Anti-SLAPP statutes (or similar laws) have proliferated across states—some following the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, others with their own frameworks. Divergence creates a patchwork that chills interstate political speech. Out-of-state speakers like Marco Polo (Wyoming LLC, Ziegler not in California) get hammered with California process.
Respondent’s Brief in Opposition (as dissected in the Reply) identifies no material misstatements in the Petition. It mostly relitigates facts the lower courts already resolved in Petitioners’ favor or tries to manufacture disputes. It concedes the speech was protected activity and that Petitioners met their initial burden. But it stays silent on legal sufficiency for the central “criminal impersonation” claim—never even producing the phone number at issue.
The Reply Brief puts it plainly: “Respondent thus takes the peculiar position that the anti-SLAPP statute is unreliable, and a party engaging in protected speech must be financially prepared to litigate not only an anti-SLAPP motion but also additional motions and appellate review. That is not the kind of freedom of speech and of the press the Constitution guarantees.”
Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1257. The constitutional questions were fully litigated through the anti-SLAPP proceedings, resolved by the Court of Appeal, and became final with the California Supreme Court’s denial of review. Post-remittitur proceedings (partial fees, dismissal) don’t moot the core injury.
The Human and Constitutional Cost
Hundreds of thousands in costs. Years of litigation. A small nonprofit diverted from its mission of exposing corruption. This is the real-world toll of lawfare. And it sends a chilling message: Dig too deep into powerful people and their enablers, and you’ll face the same.
Morris ultimately had to pay $50,000 in attorney’s fees after claims crumbled—but that’s a fraction of the true burden. The Reply Brief argues the First Amendment doesn’t condition protection on “procedural perfection or financial resources.”
This case also implicates the public’s right to receive information on matters of public concern—not just the speaker’s right to publish it.
Time for SCOTUS to Act (Supreme Court Rule 10(c))
The Petition warrants review because it presents an important, recurring federal question of national importance: the constitutional limits on anti-SLAPP procedures when they burden rather than protect core political speech and newsgathering by out-of-state defendants.
As the Reply Brief concludes: “The speech at issue in this case involved reporting and commentary concerning individuals closely connected to government and matters of substantial public concern. Such speech occupies the highest rung of First Amendment protection, and the constitutional injury extends beyond the parties themselves because the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak, but also the public’s right to receive information concerning matters of public concern.”
The Petition should be granted.
Folks, this is why independent outlets like GEORGE NEWS exist. We don’t have billionaire backers or law firms on retainer. We rely on you—our subscribers and supporters—to keep exposing these stories. Cases like this aren’t abstract legal fights; they’re battles over whether the First Amendment remains a shield for the little guy or gets turned into a sword for the connected.
If the Supreme Court takes this up, it could set precedent protecting researchers, journalists, and nonprofits nationwide from abusive litigation. If not, the blueprint for silencing dissent gets stronger.
More here:
“We believe it's the deepest digital colonoscopy ever performed on a sitting U.S. First Family”~ Garrett Ziegler, Marco Polo 501c3.