A federal judge in Miami ended Khorashi v. Beer, a lawsuit against a Jewish couple from Pennsylvania, on Thursday, who were sued over two comments they made on another’s Instagram post.
The original post appeared on Jew Hate Database, a page that documents antisemitism online, and it flagged the anti-Israel posts of a Miami attorney.
This attorney’s posts had already drawn complaints of antisemitism serious enough that her own law firm was monitoring her account. The Beers’ first comment was a link to her public law-firm profile.
The second was an opinion: “It’s disgraceful.” For that, they spent 13 months as defendants – accused of costing this attorney her job, defaming her, and conspiring with each other, with punitive damages demanded on every count.
I know this case because it was mine. I represented the Beers from the case’s first months, argued the first motion to dismiss, and drafted the motion this order grants. I write now as senior litigation counsel at StandWithUs Saidoff Law, where representing Jews who get punished for speaking up for their identity is part of the job description.
By her own complaint, the firm fired the attorney – the plaintiff – in February 2024, 11 days after the Beers posted their comment, and one day after StopAntisemitism, a watchdog account with more than 237,000 followers, posted about her and set off a flood of calls demanding her termination.
Were the attorney’s posts that the watchdogs flagged antisemitic? I would say that’s a fair description. The Beers thought so too. The plaintiff insists they merely criticized Israel. The court never had to referee that dispute through, because what decided the case was simpler. She never alleged the Beers wrote the StopAntisemitism post, contributed to it, or knew it was coming.
She did not sue StopAntisemitism, whose post Plaintiff describes as the “climactic triggering event.” She sued the couple in the comments section. Her lawyers came from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR.
The order never reaches the First Amendment. It does not have to. We raised it, along with Florida’s statute against lawsuits designed to silence speech, and the court needed neither, because ordinary Florida law already rejects every theory the complaint offered.
The lead claim, tortious interference, is the accusation that the Beers wrongfully cost her the job. Under Florida law, giving someone truthful information is never that kind of wrong. The Eleventh Circuit said so three decades ago in Worldwide Primates v. McGreal, when a defendant mailed damaging reports straight to a company’s business partner hoping to end the relationship – and could not be sued, because the reports were true. And that remained true in this case. “There are no facts Plaintiff could allege,” the court wrote, “that would render Defendants’ actions viable tortious interference.”
The defamation claim did no better. The comment at its center – wondering how the plaintiff’s Jewish clients “would feel about her public posts” – is an opinion, and an accusation read into an opinion cannot be proven true or false.
As the court put it, one person’s “subjective assessment” is not rendered false by another person’s “different conclusion.” And the conspiracy count – built on nothing more than a married couple commenting on the same viral post – failed because two people doing what anyone with a phone can do is not a conspiracy, “lest every person who comments on a public Instagram post automatically becomes a co-conspirator.”
In April 2026, I wrote about this case as one of four lawsuits targeting Jews and Jewish organizations not for lying about anyone, but for speaking. Johnson v. Georgetown University had just been dismissed in Washington, DC – every claim against every defendant who showed up – with sanctions against the plaintiff’s lawyer.
Two suits against the Chicago Jewish Alliance are still pending in Cook County. In March, a class action, Ahmad v. Canary Mission, was filed in Cook County against the watchdog organizations themselves and the New York charity that raises their funds (since dropped, for now), with a CAIR e-mail address on the signature block. It invokes Illinois’s anti-doxing law – a statute that writes the First Amendment into its own text three times over – and asks a court to order existing posts deleted from the internet.
One of its claims rests on a StopAntisemitism post that told readers: “Imagine being a Jewish patient and dealing with her!” – the twin of the comment a federal court just held is opinion. The theory running through every one of these cases is the same: the case does not have to win; the goal is to make the cost for speaking up sufficiently painful that Jews and their allies become silent.
That theory is the one thing about these suits that works. The Beers won everything a court can award a wrongly sued defendant – dismissal of the claims, for good – but it refunds nothing – not the thirteen months of stress and anxiety about the outcome; not the fees. That is why organizations like StandWithUs provide representation for free: the suit is designed to make speech expensive, and a free defense breaks the design.
One chapter remains open. Along the way, each side asked the court to punish the other’s lawyers.
The plaintiff’s motion sought to throw my co-counsel and me off the case over a press release. The court said no. Ours documented that her motion rested on quotations that appear in no opinion and at least one case that does not exist. “I don’t think there’s any dispute that the cites are improper and hallucinated,” the Judge said, ordering plaintiff’s counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned. That ruling, the last one left in the case, has not yet issued.
The writer serves as senior litigation counsel at StandWithUs Saidoff Law, the legal arm of StandWithUs, a civil rights and education organization that fights antisemitism and educates about Israel.