EXCLUSIVE: Leah Remini Claims Scientology Waged Coordinated Campaign Against Her — After Church Accused Actress of Inciting Violence
Leah Remini's attorney told a California court that the actress has endured a years-long coordinated campaign by Scientology designed to destroy her reputation.
July 24 2026, Published 9:30 a.m. ET
Leah Remini's attorney told a California appellate court Thursday, July 23, that the actress has endured a years-long coordinated campaign by Scientology designed to destroy her reputation, rejecting the Church's characterization of the dispute as merely a heated public feud, RadarOnline.com can reveal.
During oral arguments, obtained by Radar before California’s Second District Court of Appeal, Division Two, Remini’s counsel argued the Church's alleged conduct extended far beyond protected speech, telling the three-judge panel: "This is not a war of words. That's a false equivalence."
Lemin Remini's Legal Team Hits Back
According to Remini's attorney, Scientology devoted an extensive network of websites, blog posts and videos.
According to Remini's attorney, Scientology devoted an extensive network of websites, blog posts, videos, and online publications to attacking the actress after she publicly criticized the religion through her Emmy-winning docu-series, bestselling memoir, and podcast.
Counsel argued no individual could reasonably compete with what he described as the Church's sustained online campaign, pointing to hundreds of posts and videos about Remini published across Scientology-affiliated websites.
The attorney further argued that Scientology continued repeating allegedly defamatory statements even after Remini denied the accusations and filed her lawsuit, contending the repeated publications support an inference of actual malice under longstanding defamation law.
Leah Remini Accused of Violence Against the Church
The church previously accused Remini of inciting violence against Scientologists.
Among the statements challenged in the case are accusations that Remini incited violence against Scientologists, claims her legal team argued are provably false factual assertions rather than protected opinion or rhetorical hyperbole.
Remini’s attorney told the panel Scientology repeatedly accused the King of Queens alum of encouraging or being responsible for threats and violent acts targeting members of the Church, including statements alleging she incited religious violence.
He argued those accusations are capable of being proven true or false and therefore fall outside the constitutional protections afforded to opinion.
Defamation Liability
The actress' team shut down the allegations.
The judges questioned whether some of the challenged statements, including those framed as questions, could nevertheless be interpreted by a reasonable reader as factual assertions.
Remini's attorney argued the law does not permit speakers to avoid defamation liability simply by phrasing an accusation as a question if it implies a false factual claim. Counsel also argued that while Remini may be considered a limited-purpose public figure regarding Scientology, many of the challenged statements involved her personal life and family relationships, placing them outside the public controversy surrounding the Church.
Scientology disputed those arguments, maintaining Remini voluntarily entered the public debate through years of public criticism and therefore cannot establish the actual malice required for a public figure to prevail in a defamation case.
Anti- SLAPP Motion
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.
The church disputed those arguments, maintaining Remini voluntarily entered the public debate.
Church attorney Kevin Rosen argued many of the challenged statements constituted protected opinion or constitutionally protected responses to Remini’s own public attacks on Scientology.
The appeal stems from a trial court ruling on Scientology’s anti-SLAPP motion, with both sides asking the Court of Appeal to review different portions of the lower court’s decision.
After hearing arguments from both parties Thursday, the appellate panel took the matter under submission. A written opinion is expected at a later date
