As NewsBusters was first to report last November, Navy veteran Zachary Young filed an appeal for his $453 million defamation suit against the Associated Press. Three months later and both sides have submitted their arguments to Florida’s First District Court of Appeals as they await a date for their oral arguments. In the initial appeal Young stuck to his allegations that the AP defamed him by using the term “smuggle” to describe his operations to rescue people from Afghanistan during the collapse; continuing to point out that AP Style Guide gives a negative definition to the word: AP’s statement that “Young’s business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan” expressly accused Appellants of the crime of human smuggling and is classic defamation per se. AP further defamed Young by implication by creating the false impression that regardless of who funded Young’s rescue operations, Young was engaged in human smuggling. To the extent AP argued a different interpretation, defamatory meaning became an issue of fact for the jury. He also accused the court of “erroneously granting” the motion and denying Young an opportunity for punitive damages, and taking direct aim at Judge Willaim Henry’s language: The court wove a theme throughout the order that this case was a bad “sequel” to the CNN case that “should not have been made,” a “money grab,” and the “smuggling people” charge as innocuous as sneaking “candy” “into a movie theater.” The court’s irreverence and lack of judicial decorum reveal bias. Language like that was why Young was requesting a new judge to be assigned to the on remand. In the AP’s Answer Brief (filed on January 29, 2026), their lead attorney Charles Tobin, one of the same lawyers who represented CNN in Young’s defamation case against them, defended the use of “smuggle” to the court using Young’s testimony from the CNN trial: In so holding, the court highlighted Young’s trial testimony in which, in describing “how evacuation services were performed in Afghanistan,” he emphasized that getting people out of the country required covert activity and furtive measures to avoid detection by the Taliban. The court explained that, “[t]o the average reader,” Young’s descriptions of what getting Afghans out of the country entailed could be fairly “summarized with the eight-word phrase, ‘Young’s business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan,’” especially “when put in the context of the proceeding sentences” from the Article “that describe[d] how Young helped endangered and desperate Afghans escape the Taliban.” The AP’s filing tried to play games with their Stylebook’s negative definition of “smuggle”: …the AP Stylebook Young references is not evidence that The AP intended “smuggle” in this context to convey criminal wrongdoing. The Stylebook does not address the definition of the single word “smuggling” in isolation. Instead, the terms referenced in the Stylebook are “human smuggling” and “people smuggling,” which The AP did not use. Likewise, that The AP has, in other articles, used “smuggle” or “smuggling” with specific reference to criminal offenses is not evidence it meant to do so here. In fact, those other articles prove The AP’s overarching point: they conveyed criminality not solely because they used the word “smuggle” or “smuggling,” but because the broader context of the article made plain that the articles were specifically about the crime of smuggling. As would be expected, the AP touted Judge Henry’s depiction of the case when he threw it out: “The court then explained that, this time, Young’s claims were without legal basis, likening Young’s second lawsuit to one of those ‘sequels, spinoffs, or reboots’ that ‘should not be made.’ The court laid out the basis for that conclusion in detail in its lengthy, well-reasoned, order.” In Young’s Reply Brief (filed February 26, 2026), his appellate counsel Lisa Paige Glass, Esq. countered the AP’s word games with an English lesson: In a failed attempt to distance itself from its own word choice, AP disingenuously claims the Article’s “smuggle people” accusation is not encompassed within the auspices of its Stylebook’s definition of “people/human smuggling.” Clearly, “smuggle people” (the verb) is the act of “people smuggling” (the noun). It means exactly what its Stylebook states: “transporting people across an international border illegally, and with their consent, in exchange for a fee.” And it was used exactly as its Stylebook provides: “Young’s business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan,” i.e., Young’s business helped transport people across Afghanistan’s border illegally, and with their consent, in exchange for a fee. That definition is not theoretical. The articles in Appellants’ proffer show AP consistently uses “people/human smuggling” to describe illegal cross-border movement prosecuted under federal and international law. AP does not use that terminology to describe lawful humanitarian evacuation. When AP reports a business “helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan,” it employs the same terminology it uses in covering indictments and criminal networks. AP’s own usage confirms a criminal interpretation is reasonable and evidences malice. Regarding the request for a new judge on remand, the filing also argued that Young “only learned of the bias once the court entered the final order that is now on appeal.” Adding: AP argues Appellants have not demonstrated a reason to disqualify Judge Henry because he ruled in Appellants’ favor in the CNN case. One has nothing to do with the other. As Judge Henry himself said, after presiding over Appellants’ successful case against CNN, he was put off by this second lawsuit. His characterizations of this action as a “money grab” and a “sequel that should not have been made” go beyond legal analysis and reflect prejudgment of motive. In a statement to NewsBusters, Glass said: “The circuit court reduced a false felony accusation to a candy bar analogy. Human smuggling is a federal and international crime. It is not a joke, and it is not a figure of speech. Florida law requires courts to take those words as they are written, and we are confident the First District will restore that basic principle.” Daniel Lustig, Young’s lead counsel, told NewsBusters: “This case is about accountability. When a major news organization tells the world that someone ‘smuggled people,’ it is making a direct criminal accusation. The law does not allow that to be brushed aside or reinterpreted after the fact. We are confident the First District will correct the error and allow a jury to decide the meaning of those words.” As things stand right now, both sides have also filed motions requesting an oral argument before the appellate court. The hearing has yet to be scheduled.