The Associated Press has argued in court that it should not be bound by the definitions in its own AP Stylebook when defending a defamation suit, a position that raises questions about consistency, public trust, and whether a standard can mean anything if its creator picks and chooses when it applies. This article explains the case, the AP’s courtroom defense, and the pushback from the plaintiff’s lawyers who point to repeated prior usages of the same term. The dispute centers on how the AP described veteran Zachary Young’s activities and whether the phrase “human smuggling” was used as a factual criminal allegation or a rhetorical label. The outcome will test whether a major news organization can ignore its own guide when it suits its legal defense.
For decades the AP Stylebook has been the go-to guide for newsroom language, shaping how reporters describe people, events, and crimes. Lately that guide has also become a political lightning rod over issues like capitalization of racial identifiers and preferred terminology. That background matters in this case because the AP’s own manual contains a clear definition of “human smuggling” that legal counsel for Zachary Young now relies upon.
Zachary Young is the military veteran who previously won a defamation suit against CNN over language that painted him as a criminal operator rather than a professional exfiltration specialist. The current suit targets the Associated Press for reporting that described his work as “human smuggling,” a phrase Young argues carries the definitional weight of criminal conduct under both legal standards and the AP’s guidance. Young’s lawyers say the AP used language that matches the very elements the Stylebook defines as illegal.
The AP does not contest that it used the term in its reporting. Instead, in front of a three-judge panel the news syndicate argued that the Stylebook is not a binding dictionary for every story and that its entries are inapt to the circumstances of this particular case. That defense reads as a claim that the Stylebook is aspirational guidance rather than a consistent rulebook, and the inconsistency is what Young’s team highlights.
“So the article says, ‘Young’s business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan,’ and then talks about the funding for that. So, those are the definitional elements of the crime of human smuggling as recognized by federal and international law and also as recognized in the AP Stylebook, which says, which talks about smuggling as being cross-border illegal transport — illegal movement of people across the border in exchange for money. And that’s exactly what AP reported, so they didn’t report it in a rhetorical sense.”
The AP’s lawyer told the court that the organization applies terminology on a case-by-case basis and that the Stylebook was not applicable here. That defense seeks to create wiggle room: if the Stylebook is not uniformly applied, the AP argues that its own definitions cannot be used to prove the factual nature of an allegation. From a Republican viewpoint that approach looks like selective elite rule-making—standards for everyone else but flexible rules when a powerful outlet needs a defense.
“Your Honor, we do this in our briefs every day, is to use the term consistently from case-to-case, moment-to-moment within it as you’re walking through a brief. The AP did not use the terms in its Stylebook. The Stylebook is inapt as, it is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case.”
Young’s attorney, Lisa Glass, pushed back hard and produced examples showing the AP used “human smuggling” repeatedly and consistently in a criminal sense both before and after the disputed article. Her point is straightforward: if a single source sets language expectations for the news-consuming public, then inconsistent application becomes deceptive and can damage someone’s reputation. Calling the term a matter of style in some cases and an allegation in others is not a neutral position when reputations are at stake.
“Words matter. The AP created its own stylebook to ensure that. We provided 40 examples of recent reporting by the AP, which were reported both before and after the article at issue that used ‘human smuggling,’ ‘people smuggling’ in exactly the way that its stylebook was intended; to describe criminal conduct.”
One judge asked why the public should care how the AP defines “human smuggling.” The answer is that the AP functions as a language setter; when it uses a term in a hard news story, readers take that usage as authoritative. If the AP can flip meanings at will, then the public’s trust in reporting suffers and legal accountability becomes harder to enforce.
This conflict is more than legal hair-splitting. It forces a media-wide question: can a single institution write rules for everyone and then claim exemption when the rules hurt its case? The AP insisting it is not bound by its own Stylebook undercuts the idea that widely adopted standards have any force at all, and it opens the door for other outlets to claim selective application when convenient.
The courtroom debate is ongoing, and beyond the legal stakes it highlights a larger credibility test for legacy institutions. If guidebooks exist to create consistent meaning, their authors should be ready to stand by those definitions in court. Otherwise the public has every right to ask whether those so-called standards are standards at all.
Add comment