The 2000 Mules lawsuit was a federal defamation and voter-intimidation case brought by Georgia voter Mark Andrews against filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, the nonprofit True the Vote, its leaders Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips, and distributor Salem Media Group over the 2022 film that falsely portrayed him as a criminal “ballot mule.” A federal judge ruled in September 2025 that the film’s accusations against Andrews were “false as a matter of law” and defamatory per se; Salem settled and apologized in 2024, D’Souza issued his own public apology later that year, and the court docket was terminated on December 2, 2025.
Who Mark Andrews Is and What the Film Said
Mark Andrews is a Black man from Gwinnett County, Georgia, who grew up in the American South before passage of the Voting Rights Act. During the 2020 election, a surveillance camera recorded him depositing five ballots into a drop box in downtown Lawrenceville. A Georgia Bureau of Investigation review confirmed the ballots belonged to Andrews, his wife, and their three adult children, all living at the same address, an activity permitted under Georgia law. He was cleared of any wrongdoing.1Statesboro Herald. Georgia Man Sues Over False Ballot Fraud Claim Film
2000 Mules, released in 2022, used that surveillance footage anyway. Its thesis was that a coordinated network of paid operatives illegally collected and deposited ballots in drop boxes across five swing states, identified through cellphone geolocation data purchased by True the Vote. D’Souza narrated clips of individuals depositing ballots with statements like “What you are seeing is a crime. These are fraudulent votes.”1Statesboro Herald. Georgia Man Sues Over False Ballot Fraud Claim Film Andrews’s face was blurred in the film itself, but promotional materials and media interviews later showed his face clearly and revealed the license plate on his SUV.2NBC Los Angeles. Georgia Man Sues Over Being Falsely Accused in 2000 Mules Andrews and his family received threats. His complaint stated that because of the defendants’ actions, “he will never again be able to vote without looking over his shoulder.”
The Claims Andrews Filed
Andrews filed suit on October 26, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, case number 1:22-cv-04259, assigned to Judge Steven D. Grimberg. Defendants included D’Souza, D’Souza Media LLC, True the Vote, Engelbrecht, Phillips, Salem Media Group, and its subsidiary Regnery Publishing.3Democracy Docket. Georgia 2000 Mules Voter Intimidation Lawsuit
The complaint raised defamation, false-light invasion of privacy, appropriation of likeness, and civil conspiracy claims under Georgia law. It also raised a novel federal theory: voter intimidation under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. ยง 1985(3), and Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act. Andrews sought punitive damages and removal of all defamatory content from the defendants’ platforms.3Democracy Docket. Georgia 2000 Mules Voter Intimidation Lawsuit He was represented by the Protect Democracy Project alongside co-counsel from DuBose Miller and pro bono attorneys.4CourtListener. Andrews v. D’Souza, Parties The Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief in March 2023 arguing the KKK Act’s “support-or-advocacy” clauses should reach modern voter-intimidation tactics like misinformation campaigns and doxing, not just physical violence.5Campaign Legal Center. Protecting Georgia Voters From Political Intimidation, Andrews v. D’Souza
The Court’s Key Rulings
In October 2023, Judge Grimberg denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. He held that Andrews had sufficiently stated claims for defamation, false-light invasion of privacy, and appropriation of likeness, and that the Ku Klux Klan Act voter-intimidation claim was actionable. All defendants were ordered to proceed to discovery.6Protect Democracy. Judge Rules Against Dinesh D’Souza
Nearly two years later, on September 30, 2025, the judge ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment. He granted Andrews partial summary judgment on defamation, holding that the statements accusing him of being a criminal “ballot mule” were “false as a matter of law” and constituted defamation per se under Georgia law. The court noted the defendants admitted they possessed no evidence that Andrews was paid to deposit ballots, visited drop boxes multiple times, picked up ballots from nonprofits, or participated in violent riots. They had never geotracked Andrews’s cellphone or any device linked to him.7Protect Democracy. Court Affirms Core Claims in Andrews v. D’Souza
One element of the defamation claim went to a jury: whether the depictions were “of and concerning” Andrews, given that his face was often blurred or masked in the film itself. The court also declined to grant either side summary judgment on the KKK Act claim, the false-light claim, and the conspiracy claim, sending those to trial as well.8Protect Democracy. Andrews v. D’Souza, Opinion and Order on Summary Judgment Judge Grimberg found sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude the defendants “worked together, not just to make and promote the Movie, but to do so for the purpose of advancing a knowingly false narrative,” knowing the surveillance footage of Andrews had never been correlated with any geolocation data.7Protect Democracy. Court Affirms Core Claims in Andrews v. D’Souza
Salem Media’s Settlement and Apology
Salem Media Group, which distributed both the film and an accompanying book through Regnery Publishing, settled with Andrews and was dismissed from the case on June 4, 2024.3Democracy Docket. Georgia 2000 Mules Voter Intimidation Lawsuit On May 31, 2024, Salem issued a public apology to Andrews and his family, said it had “relied on representations made to us by Dinesh D’Souza and True the Vote,” and announced it would stop distributing both the film and the book. Salem removed the film from its platforms and confirmed there would be “no future distribution of the film or the book by Salem.”9Salem Media Group. Salem Media Statement
The financial terms were not publicly disclosed, though reporting described the amount as “significant.”10Wall Street Journal. 2000 Mules Salem Media Lawsuit Salem later sued its insurer, Atlantic Specialty Insurance Co., seeking to recover the defense and settlement costs, alleging the insurer improperly denied coverage.11Bloomberg Law. Salem Media Group Sues Insurer to Cover Defamation Settlement
D’Souza’s Apology
On December 1, 2024, D’Souza posted a public apology to Andrews on his website. He said the surveillance videos used in the film “were characterized on the basis of inaccurate information provided to me and my team.” He and his team had been “assured that the surveillance videos had been linked to geolocation cell phone data,” which would have meant each person shown had visited drop boxes at least ten times. He said he had recently learned the videos “may not have actually been correlated with the geolocation data,” and that had he known, he “would have clarified this and produced and edited the film differently.”12GPB News. Creator of 2000 Mules Apologizes to Man Falsely Accused of Ballot Fraud
D’Souza said the apology was not made “under the terms of a settlement agreement or other duress, but because it is the right thing to do.” He maintained his broader belief in True the Vote’s geolocation work and in the film’s central thesis that the 2020 election involved “systematic election fraud sufficient to call the outcome into question.”13NPR. Dinesh D’Souza 2000 Mules Apology True the Vote responded that it had told D’Souza’s team Andrews was not part of its “geospatial study,” but that the team included his footage regardless.12GPB News. Creator of 2000 Mules Apologizes to Man Falsely Accused of Ballot Fraud
How the Case Ended
After the September 30, 2025 summary judgment ruling, the parties agreed to mediation on November 5, 2025.3Democracy Docket. Georgia 2000 Mules Voter Intimidation Lawsuit The docket shows the case terminated on December 2, 2025, with the last known filing occurring on April 27, 2026.14CourtListener. Andrews v. D’Souza The specific nature of the resolution as to the remaining defendants, whether a settlement or dismissal on other grounds, has not been publicly disclosed in available records.
Related Proceedings That Did Not Decide This Case
Two other legal tracks touched the same subject matter but were separate from Andrews’s suit. The Georgia State Election Board pursued True the Vote’s ballot-trafficking claims through subpoenas and a Fulton County Superior Court enforcement action filed in July 2023; True the Vote admitted in court filings it did not possess the names or contact information of the alleged “mules,” and in February 2025 the election board voted to dismiss the lawsuit, withdraw its subpoena, and dismiss True the Vote’s underlying complaint.15Fox 5 Atlanta. Georgia Election Board Drops Suit After Group Fails to Produce Ballot Stuffing Evidence16Atlanta Journal-Constitution. True the Vote Sued Over Refusal to Show Evidence From 2000 Mules The book that accompanied the film was also recalled by Regnery in August 2022 over an unspecified “publishing error” and re-released in October 2022 with names of nonprofits, references to Antifa and Black Lives Matter, and other language removed or softened.17NPR. A Publisher Abruptly Recalled the 2,000 Mules Book. NPR Got a Copy18WWNO/NPR. Here’s What Changed in Dinesh D’Souza’s 2,000 Mules Book After It Was Recalled Neither proceeding resolved the defamation questions in Andrews’s federal case; those were decided by Judge Grimberg’s rulings in the Northern District of Georgia.