Israeli-American Emory Professor’s Defamation Case Against CAIR Georgia and Emory Student Can Go Forward (in Part)

This action arises out of alleged defamatory statements that Defendant Umaymah Mohammad, a student at the Emory University School of Medicine, made about Plaintiff Joshua Winer, a physician and professor at Emory. Mohammad, who is Palestinian, sent an email to the entire School of Medicine student and faculty body on January 17, 2024, in which the Plaintiff alleges she “praised terrorism against Israel, expressed her hatred towards Israel and the United States, and stated that Israel, the United States, and Emory are perpetrating a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.”

Nearly two months later, in March 2024, the Plaintiff published an op-ed piece in an Israeli news publication sharing his decision to travel to Israel to volunteer as a physician in the Israeli Defense Force (“IDF”) following the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel. The Plaintiff identifies as Jewish and maintains dual American and Israeli citizenship. He is a surgical oncologist at Emory Winship Cancer Institute, a professor in the Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology at the School of Medicine, and serves as the School of Medicine Surgical Clerkship Director.

In April 2024, Mohammad participated in an interview for a news organization called Democracy Now!. In the interview, Mohammad was asked about the email she sent and was asked to explain the importance of the issue to her. As part of her response, Mohammad referenced Winer by stating that

one of the professors of medicine we have at Emory recently went to serve as a volunteer medic in the Israeli Offense Force [sic] and recently came back. This man participated in aiding and abetting a genocide, in aiding and abetting the destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza and the murder of over 400 healthcare workers, and is now back at Emory so-called teaching medical students and residents how to take care of patients.

Mohammad was ultimately suspended from the School of Medicine for one year based on her comments in the Democracy Now! interview. In November 2024, Mohammad participated in a podcast hosted by the International Union of Scientists in which she made similar statements about the Plaintiff.

In January 2025, she made more statements about the Plaintiff’s IDF service in the online publication Mondoweiss. In the Mondoweiss piece, Mohammad alluded that the Plaintiff “believe[d] in the legitimacy of apartheid, and that some human lives are not as important as others.” At the end of the piece, she provided a link to a social media post by Defendants National Students for Justice in Palestine (“NSJP”) and Doctors Against Genocide (“DAG”), which ultimately led to a campaign on the website of Action Network that “contained additional false statements about Plaintiff and identified him by name.” NSJP and DAG also published posts on Instagram regarding the Action Network campaign, which directly quoted Mohammad’s Democracy Now! interview. These Defendants made a second Instagram post a few weeks later. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant WESPAC is NSJP’s fiscal sponsor and, therefore, “knowingly funded and facilitated NSJP’s coordinated efforts to vilify Plaintiff and pressure Emory to discipline [him].”

In February 2025, Defendant CAIR Georgia held a press conference on the subject of Mohammad’s suspension, during which she made the following statement:

[Emory] disciplined me for exposing Emory’s complicity in the destruction of Gaza in an interview where I mentioned an unnamed physician who served in the military, actively engaged in the genocidal campaign against the Palestinian people, my people … I cannot learn from a physician who might have fired one of the 355 bullets that landed in 6 year old Hind Rajab’s body.

Or who might have helped make the decision to bomb one of the hospitals in Gaza. Or who might have celebrated the murder of our communities on the rubble still wet with Palestinian blood. A doctor who cannot see Palestinians as human beings will return to Atlanta to offer the same disposability to black and brown patients at home.

CAIR Georgia, along with CAIR Foundation Inc. (“CAIR Foundation”), also issued a press release with a link to Mohammad’s Democracy Now! interview and rebroadcasted this speech on its Instagram account on February 11, 2025. In this post, (the “IG Post”), CAIR Georgia also replied to comments by providing a link to a previously circulated email template and phone script that identified the Plaintiff by name and called for Emory to investigate him and/or terminate his employment.

Mohammad’s statements were later broadcasted and published by television stations and news outlets. Defendant Emory SJP shared NJSP and DAG’s posts on its Instagram account, and also made similar posts sharing the Democracy Now! interview and identifying the Plaintiff. Defendant Rupa Marya works with Mohammad as a cofounder of DAG and, the Plaintiff alleges, she has “frequently identified Plaintiff by name and used her social media platforms to spread harmful and reputationally damaging statements about him,” including blaming him for the termination of a Palestinian professor at Emory School of Medicine and accusing him of participating in a genocide.

The court allowed plaintiff’s defamation and related claims (including a conspiracy to defame claim) to go forward, at least in part:

As the Court reads the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff has identified the following statements in his defamation per se count as attributable to CAIR Georgia:

1. Mohammad’s statements during the Democracy Now! interview, including her statements that the Plaintiff “aid[ed] and abet[ed] a genocide, … aid[ed] and abet[ed] the destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza and the murder of over 400 healthcare workers,” which CAIR Georgia republished in the IG Post on its Instagram account, and on which CAIR Georgia added links to a defamatory phone script and email in the comments;
2. Mohammad’s speech on February 11, 2025, during a press conference hosted by CAIR Georgia, in which she stated “[h]aving a physician faculty member who participated in a military convicted of committing genocide against Palestinians makes me feel unsafe. It makes black and brown medical students feel unsafe. It makes black and brown and indigenous patients feel unsafe … or who might have helped make the decision to bomb one of the hospitals in Gaza … a doctor who cannot see Palestinians as human beings will return to Atlanta to offer the same disposability to black and brown patients at home”;
3. CAIR Georgia’s issuance of a press release on its Facebook page on February 11, 2025 that included links to a phone script and email template that named the Plaintiff, implied he support genocide, war crimes, and apartheid, in addition to with Mohammad’s Democracy Now! interview;
4. CAIR Georgia’s executive director’s statement, during the February 11, 2025 press conference, that Plaintiff’s employment was indicative of Emory’s support for “Israel’s perpetration of war crimes”;
5. CAIR Georgia’s March 24, 2025 post on its Instagram that, among other things, stated that Mohammad was challenging Emory’s “medical professionals’ complicity in the genocide in Gaza.”
6. CAIR Georgia’s executive director’s March 24, 2025 statement that “[Mohammad] joined the field trying to understand inequities and the role of medicine in violence. To have to work side by side with an IDF soldier is exacerbating, and makes it uniquely painful for her.”

The Court begins with statement (1), which includes Mohammad’s statements that the Plaintiff “aid[ed and abett[ed] a genocide” and “aid[ed] and abett[ed] the destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza.” Regardless of whether these statements express protected political opinion in the first place, construing the facts in the Plaintiff’s favor, these statements could reasonably “imply defamatory facts about the plaintiff that are capable of being proved false.” This is because Mohammad’s statements—that CAIR Georgia co-posted with supporting commentary—imply that the Plaintiff actively participated in combat operations during his service in the IDF, but the Plaintiff pled that he served

solely in his capacity as a physician, providing medical care to wounded soldiers. His involvement in combat was limited to situations in which his unit came under direct attack … Mohammad had no factual basis to claim that Plaintiff participated in or approved the bombing of hospitals in Gaza [or] celebrated the killing of Palestinians.

At this stage, this allegation is enough to satisfy the “false and defamatory statement” element of his defamation per se claim.

The same is true of parts of statement (2). There are parts of the statement that express Mohammad’s opinion, such as the part that the Plaintiff’s military service makes her, and “black and brown medical students,” feel unsafe. This is a subjective assessment that cannot be proved false. But the part of the statement that suggests the Plaintiff might have been involved in combat decisions and accuses him of not “see[ing] Palestinians as human beings” and offering “the same disposability to black and brown patients” at Emory certainly implies that the Plaintiff engaged in combat operations while serving in the IDF and that patients of certain races are not safe in his care. The Plaintiff has alleged counter-facts that if, accepted as true, prove these portions of the statement false, so the Plaintiff states a claim as to these portions of statement (2).

Statements (3), (4), and (5) can fairly be grouped together for analytical purposes because each statement, when read in the entire context, implies that the Plaintiff supports and participated in a genocide, committed war crimes, and believes in apartheid, which imply facts that can be proven false. But again, because the Court accepts as true the Plaintiff’s allegations that his service in the IDF was limited to practicing medicine and defensive response only, and that he does not support apartheid, this portion of the Plaintiff’s defamation per se claim may proceed at this stage. In other words, these allegations are enough to satisfy the “false and defamatory statement” element of the Plaintiff’s defamation per se claim.

The Court agrees with CAIR Georgia, however, that statement (6) does not contain any actionable defamatory statements. The only factual portion of the statement is that the Plaintiff served as an IDF soldier, which he admits, and that he now works “side by side” with Mohammad, referencing the fact that both parties either study or work at Emory. Whether Mohammad finds working alongside the Plaintiff” “uniquely painful” is a matter of opinion not capable of being proved false. Thus, the Court will dismiss the portion of the Plaintiff’s defamation per se claim predicated on this statement, as well as the opinion portions of statement (2). But, for the foregoing reasons, CAIR Georgia’s Motion to Dismiss will be denied as to the rest of the defamation per se claim.