MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s ongoing battle against Smartmatic has hit yet another major roadblock, as a federal judge in Minnesota has denied his request to reopen a defamation case. This ruling reinforces Lindell’s longstanding difficulties in substantiating his claims regarding election fraud linked to the 2020 presidential election.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan dismissed Lindell’s motion to reconsider his liability for making unfounded statements about Smartmatic’s voting technology. Lindell had attempted to introduce a newly declassified intelligence report, arguing that it provided fresh evidence supporting his claims of election manipulation.

The court’s dismissal is significant, given Lindell’s persistent assertions that voting systems, such as those operated by Smartmatic, were central to rigging the election. His pursuit of this case has been emblematic of a broader narrative pushed by some individuals who believe the 2020 election was fraudulent.

In September 2025, Judge Bryan had already concluded that Lindell made several defamatory remarks about Smartmatic and its machines. The ruling came after a review of 51 statements, with the judge asserting that no reasonable juror could find any of them true.

The judge’s decision was rooted in the core argument surrounding Smartmatic’s technology’s actual role in the election and whether it had been compromised in any way.

Following the previous ruling, Lindell returned to court claiming that the declassified CIA report released in July indicated voting technology could indeed be hacked and manipulated. He believed this would provide enough grounds to challenge the court’s earlier findings.

However, the judge found Lindell’s arguments unpersuasive, highlighting the report’s focus on allegations of manipulation in Venezuela, rather than any direct implications for Smartmatic machines used in the United States.

Judge Bryan pointed out that Lindell’s own assertion suggested that the report undermined his claims regarding Smartmatic. He noted that there was no evidence connecting the alleged manipulation in Venezuela to the voting technology used in Los Angeles County.

The court’s analysis reaffirmed that Smartmatic’s systems were not linked to the internet and could not mathematically alter the election outcome.

Lindell’s arguments fell short in demonstrating that the declassified material introduced new evidence relevant to the earlier findings. The judge stated that motions for reconsideration require compelling evidence, which Lindell failed to present.

In his ruling, Judge Bryan noted that Lindell’s motion did not showcase any significant legal or factual errors that would warrant reopening the case.

The dismissal has left Lindell with limited options, maintaining the integrity of the earlier judgment against him.

This ongoing legal saga reflects a larger pattern of challenges faced by those promoting unfounded claims about the integrity of the electoral process in 2020. Lindell’s repeated failures to substantiate his allegations reveal a crucial gap in evidence among proponents of such narratives.

Lindell’s most recent attempt underscores a significant point of contention: that claims regarding possible vulnerabilities in voting technologies have not translated into proven misconduct.

As the case stands, the judge’s ruling eliminates Lindell’s chance for a new hearing and reinforces the previous judgment solidly against him. This outcome signals a broader implication for others making similar claims of election fraud.

Despite his persistent focus on the issue, Lindell’s legal endeavors continue to falter, raising questions about the implications for his influence in the ongoing discourse surrounding election integrity.

Ultimately, the court’s decision serves as another blow for Lindell, whose attempts to leverage intelligence reports to support his accusations have failed to find traction. As it stands, he is left grappling with the harsh realities of legal repercussions for spreading unfounded allegations.

For now, the defamation suit against Lindell remains closed, marking a significant moment in a legal battle that reflects the intersection of technology, politics, and truth in America’s current electoral landscape.