Fox News warned on Wednesday that acceptance of a Smartmatic motion for summary judgment that narrows its lawsuit to determining how much Fox News must pay in damages rather than whether Fox should pay damages would “wreak havoc” on the First Amendment.

Smartmatic seeks, according to its filing, “to narrow the issues for the jury to a single, crucial question: How much should Rupert and Lachlan’s media empire pay for promoting an intentional falsehood that destroyed a voting technology company and eroded public trust in American democracy itself?”

To do so, the court would have to “grant Smartmatic summary judgment on the liability elements for a defamation and disparagement claim against each Fox Defendant. …” That means that rather than Smartmatic having to prove individually that all 192 statements it alleges were defamatory fit the following criteria — false, defamatory, directed at Smartmatic, and made by Fox hosts with actual malice — the court would rule on categories of statements, finding “as a matter of law that” those criteria were all met.

The filing is part of an ongoing lawsuit between Smartmatic and Fox News. As The Federalist’s Beth Brelje previously reported, “Smartmatic seeks $2.7 billion from Fox in a years-long defamation case in which it accuses Fox of reporting without evidence that the company’s software had a role in rigging the 2020 election. This, the company has said in court fillings, caused Smartmatic to lose business.”

Fox News, in a response brief filed on Wednesday, alleged that Smartmatic “created a myth that it was a highly reputable elections-technology company on the cusp of billions in profit had Fox not orchestrated a conspiracy to smear its name.”

Fox News alleges a court decision in favor of Smartmatic would fly in the face of the law since — according to Fox’s brief — Smartmatic is required under state law to “analyze each of the 192 statements it alleges were defamatory across six shows that covered claims made by President Trump and his legal team. …” According to Fox’s argument, Smartmatic must prove — for every single claim — that the statements were “of and concerning Smartmatic; (2) false; (3) capable of a defamatory meaning; (4) not privileged; and (5) made with actual malice.”

“Smartmatic’s motion confirms that it does not have the facts to support its claims,” Fox’s filing states. “Smartmatic fails to explain how any of the 192 individual statements it challenges are defamatory.”

Fox News’ filing further argues that “hosts and their teams believed they were covering the most important news story of the day. They were careful to inform viewers that what they were hearing were allegations that the President’s lawyers would still need to prove in court.” Fox News argues that a ruling in Smartmatic’s favor would mean that “any time a journalist covers allegations made by officials at the highest echelon of government, it is potentially liable.”

“The Court should decline this invitation to wreak havoc on New York law and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” the brief states.

In a statement obtained by The Federalist, Fox said Smartmatic has “no basis for liability.”

“Smartmatic was a failing company that had not turned a meaningful profit in many years and had no real business prospects heading into the 2020 election,” the statement continued.

Smartmatic’s external legal counsel Erik Connolly said in a public statement on Wednesday that “this is not a case about freedom of the press.”

“This is about a media empire choosing to lie for ratings and profit, no matter the consequences and no matter the damage done.”

In a statement to The Federalist, Connolly added: “The First Amendment does not protect intentional lies. Fox has found themselves trying to justify the unjustifiable — they knowingly lied to their viewers and the public for profit.” Smartmatic also filed a memorandum of law seeking to refute Fox’s response brief.

Notably, “a federal grand jury indicted Smartmatic executives for participating in an ‘alleged bribery and money laundering scheme,’” as The Federalist reported. While Smartmatic was not listed by name, the indictment “targeted ‘three executives’ of an ‘election voting machine’ company” and listed Roger Piñate and Jorge Vásquez. Piñate was president and co-founder of Smartmatic while Vásquez worked as an executive.