EXCLUSIVE: Leah Remini Grilled Over Celebrity Status During Heated Appeal in Scientology Defamation Case — as Church Claims She 'Started the Controversy'
Leah Remini faced tough questioning from a California appellate panel Thursday amid her ongoing defamation lawsuit against the Church of Scientology.
July 24 2026, Updated 3:25 p.m. ET
Leah Remini faced tough questioning from a California appellate panel Thursday as judges weighed whether the outspoken Scientology critic qualifies as a public figure in her ongoing defamation lawsuit against the Church of Scientology International and the Religious Technology Center, RadarOnline.com can exclusively reveal.
During oral argument before the state's Second District Court of Appeal, Division Two, the judges repeatedly questioned whether Remini is an all-purpose or limited-purpose public figure – a distinction that could determine whether she must prove Scientology acted with "actual malice" to prevail on her defamation claims.
Church Challenges Leah Remini's Defamation Claims
The appeal stems from a trial court ruling on Scientology's anti-SLAPP motion
The appeal stems from a trial court ruling on Scientology's anti-SLAPP motion, a legal procedure designed to dismiss lawsuits that target protected speech under the First Amendment. Scientology is seeking to overturn portions of that ruling, while Remini is pursuing a cross-appeal over claims that were dismissed.
Counsel for the Church argued Remini voluntarily thrust herself into the public controversy through her Emmy-winning television series, bestselling book, podcast appearances and extensive media interviews criticizing Scientology.
"She also interjected herself and started, frankly, the controversy with the church," Scientology attorney Kevin Rosen told the panel – arguing Remini's global platform made her a public figure who must prove the Church knowingly published false statements or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Judge Questions Remini's Public Status
The Church further argued Remini failed to produce evidence demonstrating actual malice.
One judge pressed the issue, asking whether Remini became a public figure because she "basically created a television show that dealt with the very issue that is on appeal before us."
Rosen responded, "Absolutely."
The Church further argued Remini failed to produce evidence demonstrating actual malice, contending its challenged statements were based on information from numerous third-party sources, including former family members and acquaintances.
Church Defends Protected Free Speech
Allegedly, a woman praised the actress online and later drove her vehicle through the Scientology church.
Scientology also maintained that many of the statements at issue constituted protected opinion, rhetorical commentary, or constitutionally protected responses to Remini's own public criticism of the religion.
During the hearing, Rosen also pointed to incidents the Church argued illustrated the impact of Remini’s public criticism, including referencing a woman who allegedly praised the actress on social media before later driving a vehicle through the entrance of a Scientology church.
He also cited statements the Church made linking Remini's rhetoric to other alleged acts of violence targeting Scientologists, arguing the organization relied on third-party sources and that Remini failed to produce evidence showing Scientology knowingly published false statements or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Judges Weigh LEAH Remini's Appeal Arguments
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Remini failed to produce evidence showing Scientology knowingly published false statements.
While acknowledging Remini is at least a limited-purpose public figure with respect to Scientology, her attorney argued many of the challenged statements concerned her personal life and therefore should not automatically receive the same constitutional protections afforded to commentary on matters of public controversy.
The appellate judges also questioned both sides about California's anti-SLAPP law, the scope of First Amendment protections, and whether specific statements were capable of being proven true or false.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the three-judge panel took the matter under submission. A written opinion will be issued at a later date.
