## Facts

- Doug K. Handshoe, a Mississippi resident, operated *Slabbed.org*, a public-affairs blog focused on Gulf Coast political and legal matters.
- The blog published posts linking Trout Point Lodge and its owners, Vaughn Perret and Charles Leary, to alleged corruption involving Aaron Broussard, a former Louisiana parish president.
- Trout Point Lodge, Perret, and Leary sued Handshoe in Nova Scotia for defamation and related torts.
- Handshoe did not appear in the Nova Scotia case, and the Nova Scotia court entered a default judgment on liability and later assessed monetary damages and granted injunctive relief.
- Trout Point sought to domesticate and enforce the Nova Scotia defamation judgment in Mississippi state court.
- Handshoe removed the enforcement action to federal court and invoked the SPEECH Act, which limits recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments in the United States.

## Issues

1. Whether Trout Point proved that Nova Scotia law, as applied in the foreign proceeding, provided at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press as the First Amendment and Mississippi law (SPEECH Act § 4102(a)(1)).
2. Whether Trout Point proved that, on the facts established in the Nova Scotia proceeding, Handshoe would have been liable for defamation under U.S. and Mississippi law (SPEECH Act § 4102(a)(2)).
3. Whether summary judgment was appropriate where the judgment creditor failed to carry the SPEECH Act’s burden of proof.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Handshoe and refused recognition and enforcement of the Nova Scotia defamation judgment.
- The court held Trout Point failed to satisfy either SPEECH Act pathway for enforcement.
- The court concluded Nova Scotia defamation law in this case was not at least as protective of speech as U.S. constitutional and Mississippi standards, including because falsity was presumed and the defendant bore the burden to prove truth.
- The court further concluded the foreign judgment record lacked sufficiently specific findings (including falsity determinations tied to particular statements) to show liability would exist under Mississippi defamation law.

## Legal Principles

- Under the SPEECH Act, a U.S. court may not recognize or enforce a foreign defamation judgment unless the judgment creditor proves either:
  - the foreign jurisdiction’s law, as applied, provided at least as much protection for speech and press as the First Amendment and the forum state’s law; or
  - the foreign judgment would be sustainable under U.S. and forum-state defamation law based on the facts proved in the foreign proceeding.
- The burden of proof rests on the party seeking recognition or enforcement of the foreign defamation judgment; a foreign default judgment alone does not satisfy the Act.
- A foreign defamation regime that presumes falsity and shifts to the defendant the burden to prove truth is materially less protective of speech than U.S. standards for defamation involving matters of public concern.
- To satisfy the “would be liable under domestic law” route, the judgment creditor must show the foreign record establishes the elements of a domestic defamation claim with adequate specificity, including falsity as required under applicable U.S. and state law.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held the SPEECH Act required denial of enforcement because the judgment creditor did not show either U.S.-equivalent speech protections in the foreign proceeding or a sufficient factual basis in the foreign record to establish defamation liability under Mississippi law.


Trout Point Lodge, Ltd. v. Handshoe, 729 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 2013)