2:04Infowars host Alex Jones departs after addressing the press outside the Connecticut Superior Court amidst the ongoing Sandy Hook defamation damages trial in Waterbury, Conn., Sept. 23, 2022.Connecticut Post/ via Getty Images
The highest court in the nation, this Tuesday, dismissed the appeal from Alex Jones, a right-leaning commentator and proponent of conspiracy theories, who has been mandated to provide $1.4 billion in reparations to the relatives of those deceased in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy.
The tribunal offered no justification for its refusal.
In 2022, a Connecticut jury granted $965 million in compensation to 15 individuals libeled by Jones, when the Infowars figurehead labeled the 2012 massacre, which resulted in the deaths of 20 elementary-aged children and six grown-ups, a fabrication. Subsequently, a judge tacked on an additional $473 million in punitive penalties.
Lawyers acting on behalf of Jones asserted that the amount is one "that can realistically never be settled."
"The consequence is, in effect, a financial execution imposed arbitrarily on a media entity whose broadcasts are viewed by millions," their submission to the court stated.
Infowars host Alex Jones leaves after speaking to the media outside Connecticut Superior Court during the ongoing Sandy Hook defamation damages trial in Waterbury, Conn., Sept. 23, 2022.Connecticut Post/ via Getty Images
The highest court also turned down several other controversial cases in its roster of orders issued on Tuesday.
The justices opted not to consider an appeal from a contingent of Colorado parents aiming to sue their local school district over a guideline that ostensibly permits children to pursue gender transitioning and be supported by the institution’s staff, without any notification to the parents.
In a declaration, Justice Samuel Alito sided with the decision, expressing that the case was an imperfect "vehicle" to scrutinize the fundamental legal matter; however, he encouraged the court to seek additional avenues to address the "worrying — and lamentable — allegations in the case."
In another instance, the court dismissed an appeal from a group of unnamed minors and their families, who had taken legal action against the application Grindr for its promotional activities targeting children, introducing them to nearby adults for sexual encounters and allegedly facilitating human trafficking.
Moreover, it chose not to deliberate a closely observed California case questioning regulations set by the Food and Drug Administration overseeing the employment of stem cells to foster healing through innovative modalities of treatment, alongside a challenge from a conservative association to the Department of Homeland Security’s jurisdiction to grant temporary employment authorizations to immigrants who entered the nation unlawfully, lacking explicit endorsement from Congress.
Sourse: abcnews.go.com
