Rudy Giuliani, the former New.York City mayor and personal attorney to Donald Trump, has finally satisfied the staggering $148 million judgment stemming from his giuliani defamation case against two Georgia election workers. After years of legal battles, courtroom defeats, and public embarrassments, Giuliani has fully met his financial obligations to Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, bringing a lengthy and painful chapter in post-2020 election litigation to a formal close.
According to court documents, the settlement action was dismissed in federal district court on Monday after officials confirmed that Giuliani had completely satisfied what he owed Freeman and Moss. The conclusion of this case marks one of the most consequential defamation rulings in recent American political history, and it underscores the real-world consequences of making unfounded accusations against ordinary citizens.
The Origins of the Defamation Lawsuit
The story begins in the chaotic aftermath of the November 2020 presidential election, when Georgia emerged as one of the most fiercely contested battleground states. As vote-counting continued in Fulton County, Giuliani was among Trump’s most vocal surrogates pushing baseless claims of widespread voter fraud. He specifically targeted Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, two election workers who had been captured on security footage working with ballots at State Farm Arena in Atlanta.
Giuliani alleged without evidence that Freeman and Moss had tampered with votes and smuggled ballots in suitcases. These claims, amplified through right-wing media outlets and Trump’s tweets, turned the mother-daughter duo into overnight targets of harassment, threats, and public vilification. Freeman and Moss received death threats, were forced into hiding, and endured severe emotional distress. Their lives were fundamentally upended by accusations that had no basis in fact.
From Accusations to Courtroom Verdict
In 2023, a federal jury found Giuliani liable for defaming the two election workers. The verdict awarded Freeman and Moss a combined $148 million in damages, a figure intended to punish Giuliani for his malicious conduct and compensate the women for the harm they suffered. The size of the judgment sent shockwaves through political and legal circles, serving as a stark warning about the cost of propagating falsehoods about election integrity.
Giuliani maintained throughout the proceedings that he was merely presenting election irregularities to the public in good faith. However, the jury’s decision was unequivocal. Once the damages were finalized in December 2024, Giuliani began the process of surrendering assets to satisfy the judgment.
The Settlement and Asset Handover
In January, a settlement was reached between the parties, allowing Giuliani to satisfy the obligation without admitting guilt. Notably, the agreement permitted him to keep his Florida condominium and his collection of World Series rings, items that held significant sentimental and personal value. Everything else, however, became part of the equation as plaintiffs’ attorneys sought to collect on the record-setting judgment.
As Giuliani worked to comply with the settlement terms, he encountered significant friction with the court. He was held in contempt twice, by two different federal judges, for failing to relinquish possessions in a timely manner and for continuing to defame Freeman and Moss despite the pending matter. The contempt rulings illustrated the court’s frustration with Giuliani’s reluctance to comply fully and his inability or unwillingness to cease making harmful statements about the two women.
Court documents confirmed that the settlement action was dismissed once it was determined Giuliani had “fully satisfied his obligations to Freeman and Moss.” While the exact nature of the final asset transfers remains partially private, the legal chapter has formally concluded from the court’s perspective.
The Role of the Settlement Statement
When the settlement was announced, Giuliani issued a statement agreeing not to further defame the two election workers. Importantly, the agreement did not include any admission of guilt or apology. This was a notable omission given the documented harm the women experienced. The lack of an acknowledgment of wrongdoing reflected Giuliani’s continued insistence that his actions regarding the 2020 election were justified.
His representative, Ted Goodman, framed the outcome in characteristically defiant terms, stating that “the plaintiffs’ attorneys could take the possessions from the former Trump lawyer, but they can never take away his extraordinary record of public service.” The statement, while intended to project resilience, did little to address the substantive harm inflicted on Freeman and Moss.
Disbarment and the Erosion of a Legal Legacy
The aftermath of Giuliani’s post-election activities extended far beyond civil litigation. He was disbarred in New York in 2024 after the state bar determined that his efforts to aid Trump’s bid to overturn the 2020 election results constituted professional misconduct. Shortly thereafter, his law license was also stripped in Washington, D.C., effectively ending his ability to practice law in two major jurisdictions.
The disbarment represented a dramatic fall for a man who once served as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and built a national reputation as “America’s Mayor” following the September 11 attacks. His legal career, which spanned decades and included high-profile cases ranging from organized crime prosecutions to corporate fraud, ended in disciplinary action because of conduct related to election challenges that courts repeatedly found to be unsubstantiated.
Broader Implications for Political Speech and Accountability
The conclusion of the Giuliani defamation case raises important questions about the boundaries between political advocacy and personal accountability. While free speech protections are foundational to American democracy, they are not absolute. When public figures direct false accusations at private citizens, resulting in tangible harm, the legal system provides remedies. The $148 million judgment, though extraordinary in size, sent a clear message that defamation has consequences regardless of the speaker’s fame or political affiliations.
Legal scholars have pointed to the case as a potential precedent for future situations involving high-profile individuals and election-related misinformation. The willingness of a jury to assign such substantial damages to Freeman and Moss demonstrated that courts are willing to treat election workers as private citizens deserving of protection from baseless attacks, rather than as public figures who must tolerate unfounded criticism.
What Comes Next for Freeman and Moss
For Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, the resolution of the defamation case offers something that money alone cannot fully provide, namely, a measure of closure. The women spent years defending themselves against false accusations that had been broadcast to millions. While the financial settlement provides resources to rebuild their lives and recover from the trauma, both women have spoken publicly about the lasting psychological effects of being thrust into the center of a national political storm.
The case also highlighted the courage required to stand up against powerful figures with vast platforms and loyal followings. By pursuing the lawsuit and seeing it through to a successful resolution, Freeman and Moss set an example for others who find themselves similarly targeted by political actors seeking to deflect attention from their own failures or falsehoods.
Lessons from the Giuliani Verdict
Several key lessons emerge from the final disposition of this landmark case. First, defamation law applies to everyone, including former mayors, high-profile attorneys, and close allies of sitting presidents. Second, the legal process can pursue assets across state lines and through complex asset structures, meaning that satisfying large judgments is rarely as simple as writing a check. Third, settlements that do not include admissions of fault can still provide a practical resolution while leaving room for parties to save face.
Conclusion
The dismissal of the settlement action in the Giuliani defamation case represents the end of one of the most closely watched defamation lawsuits in American history. After being found liable for falsely accusing two Georgia election workers of tampering with votes, then watching his legal career disintegrate through disbarment proceedings in two jurisdictions, Giuliani has now fully satisfied his $148 million obligation. While the formal conclusion of the case may not restore the reputations he damaged or undo the harm he caused, it does confirm that accountability exists, even for those who once held positions of considerable power and influence. The outcome sends a powerful signal about the seriousness of defamation claims and the limits of political speech when it crosses into targeted falsehoods about private individuals. As the nation continues to grapple with questions about election integrity and misinformation, the Giuliani case will remain a defining reference point in the ongoing conversation about truth, accountability, and the responsibilities that come with public platforms.