Candace Owens Battles Lawsuit in Delaware Court Over Macron Defamation Claims Amid Heated Legal Dispute

Candace Owens' attempt to escape a bombshell defamation lawsuit brought by French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, remains unresolved following a heated courtroom showdown over whether the controversial commentator can be sued in Delaware, OK! can reveal.

The latest developments follow legal filings obtained by OK!, in which Owens' attorneys challenged the Macrons' decision to pursue their claims in the United States, arguing the French couple improperly sought to take advantage of American courts and their longer deadline for filing defamation lawsuits.

During a hearing in Delaware Superior Court, attorneys for both sides clashed over whether Owens has sufficient connections to the state to face the lawsuit personally.

Owens' attorney, Chad Shandler, argued the Macrons deliberately chose Delaware because its two-year statute of limitations provides significantly more time to pursue defamation claims than France's three-month deadline.

"The only logical explanation for filing here is to take advantage of Delaware's longer statute of limitations," Shandler told the court.

Owens' legal team maintained that the commentator operates primarily from Tennessee and should not automatically face personal liability in Delaware simply because businesses associated with her are incorporated there.

But attorneys representing the Macrons pushed back, arguing Owens cannot benefit from Delaware's corporate protections while simultaneously denying the state's authority to hear claims connected to those businesses.

Thomas Clare, representing the French couple, argued that allowing Owens to escape the case would produce an "absurd" outcome.

"Delaware is good enough for me but not for thee," Clare said, describing the position Owens would effectively be taking.

The legal battle stems from a lawsuit filed in July 2025 accusing Owens of spreading false and damaging allegations about Brigitte.

Among the disputed statements were Owens' claims that France's first lady was born male and concealed her identity.

The Macrons have rejected those allegations, accusing Owens of promoting baseless conspiracy theories that damaged their reputations. Owens has defended her commentary while challenging the couple's legal claims.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified financial damages, including punitive damages.

However, the latest courtroom dispute focused on jurisdiction and procedural questions rather than whether Owens' underlying statements were defamatory.

Judge Sheldon K. Rennie questioned attorneys about whether French or Tennessee law should apply and whether Owens' Delaware-registered companies could establish jurisdiction over her personally.

The judge ultimately adjourned the hearing without ruling on Owens' dismissal request.

Both Owens and Brigitte listened remotely but did not address the court. The pending decision could significantly reshape the international legal battle.

If Owens succeeds in her jurisdictional challenge, she could be dismissed personally from the Delaware proceedings, although that would not necessarily eliminate claims against her companies.

If the judge rejects her arguments, the lawsuit could advance toward further litigation, potentially opening the door to evidence gathering and testimony.

For now, Owens' effort to escape the Macrons' legal challenge remains in the judge's hands, with neither side securing a decisive courtroom victory.