Nearly three years after Leah Remini took the Church of Scientology to court, her case just cleared one of its biggest hurdles yet. A California appeals court ruling handed down this week largely upheld her lawsuit against the church and its leader, David Miscavige, opening the door to discovery and depositions that Scientology has spent years working to avoid entirely.
The case has become one of the most closely watched legal battles involving the church in decades, and the latest ruling suggests it’s only getting more serious from here.
How the Lawsuit Began
Remini filed her original complaint in August 2023, alleging the Church of Scientology International and the Religious Technology Center subjected her to a sustained campaign of harassment, stalking, defamation, and interference with her business relationships. She has framed the case around what she calls Scientology’s “Fair Game” policy, a practice she says the organization used against her as retaliation for leaving the church in 2013 and becoming an outspoken critic.
Her complaint also connects her legal fight to a deeply personal mission: her years-long effort to determine the whereabouts, health, and safety of her friend Shelly Miscavige, David Miscavige’s wife, who hasn’t been seen publicly in more than two decades. Remini has argued that her advocacy on Shelly’s behalf, combined with her broader criticism of the church, made her a specific target for retaliation.
What the Appeals Court Just Decided
The Second Appellate District issued its ruling on July 31, largely affirming a lower court decision while making some notable adjustments in both directions. The panel agreed with Scientology that a number of statements Remini claimed were defamatory should be struck from the case, ruling for instance that she can’t sue over being called an “unhinged religious bigot” or a “one-woman hate machine,” since those kinds of characterizations were considered opinion rather than actionable factual claims.
However, the appeals court also found the lower court had made an error in one important respect: it had struck certain claims for falling outside the statute of limitations, and the appellate panel disagreed, ruling those claims should be allowed to proceed after all. That reversal matters significantly, since it expands the scope of conduct Remini’s legal team can pursue rather than narrowing it further.
Perhaps most notably, the court made pointed observations about the church’s conduct, finding evidence of what it described as a practice of deliberate attacks and pointing to potential “actual malice,” a legal standard that requires showing a defendant knew a statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth. The ruling specifically noted the defendants’ statements may have exaggerated or overdramatized events in ways Remini could pursue as defamation claims, even while some other individual statements didn’t clear that bar.
Why the Ruling on Miscavige Matters So Much
For years, Scientology’s legal strategy has centered on shielding David Miscavige personally from any form of litigation exposure. According to court watchers who’ve followed the church for decades, the organization has gone to considerable lengths to keep Miscavige out of depositions, even settling other claims, including one from a former top official, specifically to avoid the risk of him facing discovery.
This ruling breaks that pattern. The appeals court cleared the way for Remini’s legal team to pursue discovery directly from Miscavige and his close aides, which could include formal depositions. Given how rarely Scientology has allowed this kind of exposure in the past, legal observers following the case have described this as a genuinely significant blow to the church’s long-standing defensive strategy.
The Case’s Bumpy Procedural Road
Beyond the substantive legal rulings, Remini’s case has also seen unusual turbulence in terms of who’s actually presiding over it. The case has now been assigned to its fourth judge, after a successful peremptory challenge, a procedural tool that allows parties to remove a judge without stating a reason, was filed against the previous judge. Peremptory challenges of this kind don’t require public justification under California law, so the reasoning behind the move wasn’t disclosed.
An earlier ruling from Judge Randolph Hammock had already shaped much of the case’s current scope, granting part of Scientology’s anti-SLAPP motion, which struck several claims the judge found were either time-barred or based on statements considered opinion rather than fact. Importantly, though, that ruling left the harassment claims largely intact, and the appeals court’s recent decision has reinforced most of that framework while making the adjustments described above.
Scientology’s Position on the Case
The church has consistently argued that Remini herself initiated the public conflict through her A&E series, “Scientology and the Aftermath,” and maintains that its subsequent statements about her are protected under the First Amendment. That defense has succeeded in narrowing parts of Remini’s original complaint, but it hasn’t been enough to get the core harassment and stalking allegations dismissed entirely, and the recent appellate ruling suggests those claims now have a stronger foundation moving forward than they did before.
What Comes Next
With the appeals court ruling largely settled, the case now returns to the trial court level, where discovery, including the newly cleared path toward deposing Miscavige and his aides, is expected to move forward. Given how contentious and closely watched this litigation has already become, further procedural battles over the scope and timing of that discovery seem likely before the case approaches anything resembling a trial date.
FAQs
Q. Does this ruling mean Leah Remini has already won her lawsuit against Scientology?
No. This appellate ruling addresses which specific claims can proceed and clears the way for discovery, including from David Miscavige. The underlying merits of Remini’s remaining claims still need to be resolved at trial or through further proceedings.
Q. Why has Scientology worked so hard to keep David Miscavige out of legal proceedings?
According to longtime observers of the church, Scientology has historically avoided any litigation exposure for Miscavige specifically, reportedly settling other cases just to prevent him from facing depositions. This ruling represents a notable departure from that pattern of avoidance.
Q. What’s the difference between the defamation claims and the harassment claims in this case?
The defamation claims center on specific statements Scientology allegedly made about Remini that she says were false, some of which have been struck as protected opinion. The harassment and stalking claims focus on alleged conduct, like interference with her business relationships and pressure campaigns against people who worked with her, and those claims have largely remained intact throughout the case’s various rulings.
Q. Why has the case had four different judges assigned to it?
California law allows parties to file a peremptory challenge to remove an assigned judge without providing a reason, under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. The most recent change came after a successful challenge from a Scientology-affiliated party, though the specific reasoning behind that decision wasn’t publicly disclosed.
