⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The D.C. Circuit hears Michelle Murray versus Debbie Shaw. Murray worked as a lawyer in the Social Security Administration’s inspector-general office and served as its whistleblower-protection coordinator. The underlying dispute began after agency lawyers raised concerns about Social Security’s financial-penalty program. Shaw, another agency lawyer, challenged personnel actions as whistleblower retaliation and won corrective relief from an administrative judge. News coverage later described Murray as one of the officials the judge had found retaliated against Shaw. Murray says that description misstated the decision and wrongly portrayed her as responsible for continuing retaliation. She sued Shaw, other federal employees, and news organizations for defamation and related claims. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that some reporting fairly described the administrative proceeding and that other claims were inadequately pleaded. Murray will argue that the reporting attributed a finding of personal retaliation to her that the administrative judge never made. The media defendants will argue that their reporting was substantially accurate and that she has not plausibly alleged actual malice: knowledge of falsity or serious doubts about the truth. Shaw’s lawyer will argue that Murray did not identify an actionable false statement by Shaw and cannot hold her responsible for the journalists’ editorial choices. A separate dispute concerns the government’s substitution for some federal employees under the Westfall Act. That law can make the United States the defendant when an employee’s alleged wrongdoing falls within the scope of federal employment. Murray will seek discovery to challenge that protection, particularly for contacts with Congress; the government will defend those contacts as an outgrowth of the employees’ work.

Michelle Murray v. Debbie Shaw (No. 25-5196) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued November 13, 2026.