On July 14, 2026, a court decision in the case of Grasso v. Mottl, authored by Justice Matthew Bertani and joined by Justices Linda Davenport and John Anderson, allowed a political defamation case to proceed to a jury trial.

The plaintiff, Gary Grasso, mayor of Burr Ridge, sued opposing candidate Zachary Mottl and his campaign team for publishing three political mailers during a campaign. These mailers alleged that Grasso had defrauded the government of $36,000 in real estate tax exemptions by improperly receiving homestead exemptions for residences in both Du Page County and Cook County simultaneously.

The defendants based their claim on a research report from America Rising, a third-party political research firm they retained. The report indicated an annual $6,000 homestead exemption overlap for two years, but the mailers suggested a six-year period totaling $36,000. A colorable argument was noted that Grasso may have received $12,000 in improper exemptions on his Burr Ridge residence.

On appeal, Grasso argued that the court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendants, asserting that genuine questions remain about whether the defendants knew the mailers contained false information or doubted their truth. The court highlighted that a reasonable jury might find the defendants acted with actual malice, especially since the defendants could not adequately explain how they arrived at the $36,000 figure.

The ruling referenced the United States Supreme Court's standard that defendants in defamation cases involving public officials cannot guarantee a favorable verdict merely by claiming belief in the truth of their statements. Furthermore, Grasso was not expected to provide a counter-affidavit about what a campaign staffer knew, as he had no personal knowledge of that.

This decision underscores the complexities in political defamation cases where factual disputes about intent and knowledge remain unresolved.

Sources