The Docket: Mark Robinson Drops CNN Suit

Mark Robinson’s defamation case against CNN and former Greensboro porn shop clerk Louis Money ended on Friday with the former lieutenant governor conceding in a press release that “continuing to pursue retribution from CNN is a futile effort.”

Robinson filed suit after articles in The Assembly and CNN derailed his campaign for governor, but now says he has asked his legal team “to terminate any continued attempt to litigate with CNN on my or my family’s behalf.”

Robinson initially sued the network for $50 million, violating a state rule that forbids plaintiffs from seeking headline-grabbing damage claims. CNN moved the case to federal court—because CNN is headquartered in a different state, federal courts have jurisdiction—where it soon became apparent that Robinson faced long odds. 

To win a defamation suit as a public figure, Robinson would have to show that Money and CNN had acted with “actual malice,” a legal term that means they knew the allegations were false or acted with “reckless disregard” for the truth. Robinson alleged that CNN was biased and ran the article despite his denials. CNN countered that its story painstakingly detailed how reporters connected Robinson to the Nude Africa posts, and said that because Robinson couldn’t meet the actual malice standard, the judge should toss the lawsuit.  

Robinson’s lawyers, meanwhile, argued that the federal court should simply ignore New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court precedent that established the actual malice standard. And one of Robinson’s attorneys, Jesse Binnall, previously represented President Donald Trump, who has said he wants to “open up” libel laws and has frequently threatened media outlets. 

But before U.S. District Judge Louise Flanagan could rule on CNN’s motion to dismiss, Robinson voluntarily withdrew the case. “The price we have paid in entering the political arena will never be recognized,” Robinson continued. “There is no dollar amount high enough.” 

Robinson also said he would not seek office in 2026—apparently closing the door on a rumored primary challenge to U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis—and does not “have plans to seek elected office in the future.” 

Mark Robinson Drops Lawsuit Against CNN, Says He’s Exiting Politics

In December, the combative former lieutenant governor asked a federal judge to rewrite libel laws. On Friday, he conceded that “continuing to pursue retribution from CNN is a futile effort.”

Thank you for supporting The Assembly! Below are this week’s exclusive stories that are available only to our Premium Subscribers like you:

A Test of First Amendment Protections

Free speech and academic freedom advocates are gearing up for arguments at the state Supreme Court later this month in the case of a former Winston-Salem State University professor who lost his job after sending a letter to a supervisor that included racially disparaging remarks.

Alvin Mitchell, a tenured professor in the Department of Social Sciences at the historically black campus for nearly 10 years, has challenged the school’s 2019 decision in both federal and state court.

His 2019 lawsuit in state court tests the limits of First Amendment protections as they relate to teaching and scholarship, raises questions about the UNC system’s disciplinary process, and what weight courts should give to administrative agencies’ interpretations of law, or “agency deference.”

The university asked the state Supreme Court to dismiss the case. But Mitchell and his attorneys argue a ruling could have sweeping effects.

“This case presents the Court with the choice between two paths that will define academic freedom and the separation of powers in this State for decades to come,” Mitchell’s attorneys wrote. If universities are allowed to fire professors for expressing viewpoints that others find offensive in forums beyond the classroom or an academic journal, it “will cripple viewpoint diversity in our public universities, forcing professors to self-censor in conversations with colleagues, students, and administrators.”

At the core of the case is a letter that Mitchell wrote to Denise Nation, co-chair of the social sciences department. Two of Mitchell’s students had requested funding to attend a Race, Gender & Class Conference in New Orleans, but Nation did not approve the trip. Instead, she recommended they present at an American Society of Criminology event. “One of the students believed that Dr. Nation may have encouraged the students to look into the ASC conference because it was primarily Caucasian,” according to a 2023 Court of Appeals ruling.

In his response to Nation, Mitchell accused her of sharing “falsehoods” and acting inappropriately for a department chair. “It is amazing how you always try to debunk what I do,” Mitchell wrote. “Yet you complain that I tell students negative things about you.”

Mitchell described the alternative conference as one run by “nothing but a bunch of white men (some white women)” and suggested she was fixated on currying favor with white peers. Both Mitchell and Nation are Black.

“After all these years, it is amazing that you still think that anything white is better,” Mitchell wrote. “In their eyes you will never be equal to them. They still look at you as a wanna be white, an international n****r, an international c**n, and an international sambo (lol) because you display that kind of behavior.”

Nation reported the incident to the dean and provost. The school moved to terminate Mitchell in August 2017, citing the letter and several other disputes about teaching assignments, grading, and his engagement with students.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative advocacy organization, has filed an amicus curiae brief on Mitchell’s behalf, and the John Locke Foundation, North Carolina Chamber Legal Institute, and North Carolina Farm Bureau also weighed in on some of the underlying legal questions.

The Brennan Center For Justice lists the oral arguments, which are scheduled for February 19, among four to watch this month.

—Anne Blythe

---

The Best Offense is a Good Defense

As Jefferson Griffin continues his effort to invalidate more than 65,000 votes in the state Supreme Court election, recent campaign finance reports offer a glimpse of the well-connected donors helping to foot legal bills in the case.

Griffin, a Republican Court of Appeals judge, trails Democratic Justice Allison Riggs by 734 votes, but the state Board of Elections has been temporarily blocked from certifying those results.

The next go-around in the matter comes this Friday, when Griffin is scheduled to go before a judge in Wake County Superior Court about his petition for review of the votes he’s challenging. 

Meanwhile, both Riggs and Griffin have set up legal funds to cover all these court costs.

The Jefferson Griffin Legal Expense Fund filed a campaign finance report on January 8 detailing his expenses and donations from November 13 to December 31. During that period, he spent $14,000 on legal services from Dowling PLLC, the trial and appellate law firm representing him in his post-election challenges.

As WUNC has reported, Tom Murry, a fellow Court of Appeals judge and former Republican state lawmaker, contributed $5,000 to Griffin’s defense fund from a campaign account he set up when he was briefly considering a 2024 run for state attorney general. Conrad Boyd Sturges III, a Louisburg attorney and the husband of superior state court judge Cynthia Sturges, contributed $4,000.

About a month later, Cynthia Sturges presided over an unusual ex parte hearing with one of Griffin’s attorneys while counsel for the other side was not present. Initially Sturges granted an order blocking the certification of the Supreme Court election, but quickly withdrew it.

The Justice Allison Riggs Legal Defense Fund did not list any expenditures on legal defense in the most recent campaign finance report from November 19 to December 31. Among her donors was Jim Goodmon, CEO of Capitol Broadcasting, who contributed $10,000 on December 10, according to the report. Her next-highest donor was Clifford Burnstein, of the New York-based music management company Q Prime, at $5,000. 

—Anne Blythe

---

Around The State

Why Most Counties Aren’t Doing All Required Restaurant Inspections

As counties struggle to hire and retain health inspectors, lawmakers, regulators, and scientists look to ease caseloads and develop new talent.

These Moms Never Stopped Fighting For Their Sons

Eloise Vaughn and Patsy Clarke, who lost sons to AIDS and joined forces against Jesse Helms, both died recently.

U.S. Attorney Resigns, Leaving Columbus Corruption Probe in Limbo

Michael Easley Jr. announced his resignation on Wednesday as part of the Trump transition.