French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte chose a Delaware courtroom over a French one to sue conservative podcaster Candace Owens for defamation, and her attorneys say the reason is a statute of limitations France would have already closed.

Lawyers for Owens squared off against the Macrons' legal team in a Delaware court Monday, arguing the French president and his 73-year-old wife filed their lawsuit in the United States for one reason: France gives defamation plaintiffs just three months to sue, while Delaware allows two years. The Macrons' attorney fired back that Owens runs Delaware-registered companies that published the statements at the heart of the case, making the state a proper venue, the New York Post reported.

Judge Sheldon K. Rennie heard arguments on Owens' motion to dismiss but did not rule from the bench. The Macrons phoned into the hearing but neither spoke.

The lawsuit, filed in July 2025, accuses Owens of spreading false conspiracy theories that Brigitte Macron is transgender and that the Macrons are related by blood. The 22-count complaint runs more than 200 pages and alleges Owens knowingly published the claims to build her audience and boost her income, Just The News reported.

Owens began promoting the theories in 2024 while working at the Daily Wire and continued on her independent podcast "Candace." Her spokesperson has framed the suit as "a foreign government attacking the First Amendment rights of an American independent journalist."

Owens' lawyers say Delaware has no connection to the podcaster's work

Chad Shandler, one of Owens' attorneys, told the court that "the only logical explanation for filing here is to take advantage of Delaware's longer statute of limitations." The gap between the two countries' deadlines is stark: three months in France versus two full years in Delaware. If the Macrons had filed in their home country, the window would have shut long before the July 2025 filing.

Owens claims she runs her podcast from her basement in Nashville, Tennessee, and has no personal ties to Delaware. Her other attorney, Katharine Mowery, argued that even if Owens has companies registered in the state, "there's no allegation she used her corporate power to make those allegedly defamatory statements."

The distinction matters. Defamation cases in the United States often hinge on whether the court has jurisdiction, legal authority, over the defendant. If Owens' corporate registrations are mere formalities with no operational link to the statements in question, her lawyers contend, Delaware is the wrong forum.

In recent years, high-profile defamation disputes have tested the boundaries of where and how public figures can be held liable for speech. A federal judge's $1.7 million defamation award to Hunter Biden against a former CEO showed how aggressively courts are willing to act in such cases.

Macrons' attorney calls dismissal bid 'absurd,' points to Delaware companies

Thomas Clare, representing the Macrons, pushed back hard. He argued that Owens' Delaware-registered companies "are the ones that actually published the defamatory statements," making the state a legitimate venue. Granting dismissal, Clare told the judge, would set an "absurd" precedent, essentially allowing defendants to incorporate in a state and then claim they have no ties to it when sued there.

Clare summed up the argument with a pointed line:

"Delaware is good enough for me but not for thee."

The Macrons' legal team has cast the lawsuit as a last resort. AP News reported that the couple's attorneys spent a year trying to get Owens to retract her claims before filing suit. Clare said at an earlier stage of the case that each time they reached out, Owens "mocked the Macrons" and "mocked our efforts to set the record straight."

The 219-page complaint includes what the Macrons' lawyers describe as "extensive evidence" that Brigitte Macron was born a woman and has always been a woman. Beyond the transgender claim, the suit also targets Owens' allegation that Macron was installed through a CIA mind-control program, a claim that stretches even the loosest definition of political commentary.

Macron himself addressed the lawsuit publicly for the first time in an interview with the French outlet Paris Match. He characterized Owens as someone who "knew very well that she was spreading false information and did so with the aim of causing harm, in the service of an ideology and with established connections to far-right leaders," the Washington Examiner reported.

Brigitte Macron already won a cyberbullying case in France

The Delaware suit is not the only legal front the Macrons have opened. Brigitte Macron won a separate case in a French court, where 10 people were found guilty of cyberbullying the first lady. One defendant received six months in jail. The others drew suspended sentences of four to eight months, and all were ordered to attend cyberbullying awareness training.

That French victory, however, did not involve Owens. And the three-month statute of limitations in France for defamation, far shorter than the cyberbullying timeline, would have made filing there against Owens far more difficult, if not impossible, given the timeline of events.

Owens has not backed down. Breitbart noted that she previously stated she would stake her "entire professional reputation" on her claims about Brigitte Macron. The Macrons' attorneys said they made repeated requests for retraction, all of which Owens "refused or mocked."

The lawsuit itself frames Owens' motives bluntly: "These claims are demonstrably false, and Owens knew they were false when she published them. Yet, she published them anyway. And the reason is clear: it is not the pursuit of truth, but the pursuit of fame."

The legal landscape for public figures facing defamation claims has grown increasingly complex. A recent appeals court stay on an $83.3 million defamation award underscored how high the financial stakes can climb in these disputes.

Forum-shopping or fair filing? The core question for Judge Rennie

The central issue before the court is straightforward: Did the Macrons pick Delaware because it was the right jurisdiction, or because it was the convenient one? Owens' lawyers argue the answer is obvious. A sitting foreign head of state bypassed his own country's courts, courts where he holds considerable influence, and filed 4,000 miles away in a state where his opponent happens to have a corporate registration.

The Macrons' side counters that Owens cannot have it both ways. She chose Delaware for her business entities. Those entities, Clare argued, distributed the content at issue. That makes Delaware the place where the alleged harm originated.

Judge Rennie gave no indication of when he would rule. The case remains active, and the legal questions it raises, about jurisdiction, speech, and the ability of foreign leaders to use American courts, are likely to draw continued attention regardless of the outcome.

Legal scrutiny of public figures and media personalities has intensified across the political spectrum. The DOJ's recent criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll over perjury allegations is one example of how legal exposure can cut in unexpected directions.

Meanwhile, scrutiny of government officials and their public statements continues to generate friction. FBI Director Patel's recent pushback against reports questioning his performance showed how quickly institutional figures find themselves on the defensive in the current media climate.

A foreign president in an American courtroom raises uncomfortable questions

Whatever the merits of the Macrons' defamation claims, the venue question cuts to something deeper. A foreign head of state chose an American court to silence an American commentator, and his lawyers' own arguments suggest France's legal system would not have given him the time he needed to do it.

Owens may or may not have the facts on her side. But the First Amendment exists precisely to ensure that question gets answered in the open, not routed through a jurisdiction selected for its procedural convenience.