Bishop T.D. Jakes has taken legal action against a former pastor who publicly accused him of decades-old sexual abuse.

According to the Christian Post, Jakes filed a defamation lawsuit in late 2024 against Duane Youngblood, a registered sex offender, after Youngblood claimed in online interviews that Jakes had abused him nearly forty years ago.

Jakes, 67, is the founder of The Potter’s House in Dallas, Texas, and currently chairs the T.D. Jakes Foundation. He initiated the lawsuit in November 2024, just one day after he suffered a heart attack while delivering a sermon.

The focus of the legal dispute is Youngblood, 58, a former pastor with a documented criminal history involving minors. Youngblood accused Jakes of abusing him when he was 18 or 19 years old, an allegation he made public during appearances on the "Larry Reid Live" webcast last fall.

In response, Jakes filed a 20-page defamation complaint, arguing that the claims were knowingly false and intended to harm his reputation. Jakes’ legal team also alleged a civil conspiracy and an attempt by Youngblood to extort him for large sums of money.

Decades-Old Allegations Draw Legal Firestorm

According to the lawsuit, Youngblood has a history of misconduct, with documented offenses against minors going back to at least 2002. The suit also claims that his present accusations are riddled with inconsistencies and fabrications meant to deflect attention from his crimes.

In January 2025, Youngblood attempted to dismiss the lawsuit by filing a 167-page motion under Federal Rule 12(b)(6), a legal standard used to challenge insufficient claims. The motion also included affidavits, including one from Youngblood’s brother, who echoed abuse allegations against Jakes.

Youngblood’s lawyer, Tyrone Blackburn, argued that public figures like Jakes must meet a high bar to win defamation cases. According to Blackburn, his client’s statements were legally protected, and Jakes failed to provide necessary details such as exact wording and proof of intentional harm.

Judge Clarifies Standards For Early Dismissal

United States District Judge William S. Stickman IV responded to the initial dismissal effort in April 2025. He ruled that Youngblood’s earlier filing based on the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act did not meet the criteria for dismissal at that stage.

In his memorandum opinion, Judge Stickman clarified that, at the early stage of litigation, Jakes was not required to prove his claims with clear or convincing evidence. Instead, Jakes only needed to allege facts that, if accepted as true, would present a plausible claim.

Stickman emphasized that Youngblood’s motion had mistakenly shifted the legal burden too soon. He also noted that the motion had failed to make a proper argument under Rule 12(b)(6) and instead relied on legal reasoning from an earlier context.

Use Of Fabricated Legal References Challenged

Shortly after Youngblood’s extensive motion to dismiss, Jakes’ attorney Dustin Pusch filed a 483-page opposition, claiming that Youngblood misused legal sources and fabricated several court citations. “First among them: most of the authority cited in his brief is made up,” the filing states.

Pusch contended that Youngblood falsified quotes from at least eight legal cases and possibly relied on artificial intelligence software in generating his arguments. He labeled the motion “a fever dream” and questioned its authenticity and purpose.

Beyond legal inconsistencies, Pusch pointed to conflicting narratives from Youngblood. Initially, Youngblood stated publicly that he was 18 or 19 years old at the time of the alleged abuse, but later claimed in a legal letter that he had been only 17—a key distinction under the law.

Legal Experts Weigh In On Burden Of Proof

These contradictions, according to Jakes’ attorneys, demonstrate either deliberate deception or reckless disregard for the truth. “This type of contradiction suggests either an intentional lie or at least a reckless disregard for the truth,” Pusch wrote in court documents.

He argued that the story appeared to be part of a coordinated attempt to distort facts and damage Jakes’ reputation. “The underlying story... depicts a carefully planned effort by a convicted criminal, and those acting in concert with him... to deflect blame... and publicly smear a... respected religious leader,” the complaint reads.

Legal analyst Neama Rahmani noted that proving defamation for a public figure, under U.S. law, requires demonstrating that the accused knew their statements were false or acted with severe indifference to their truth. This is a much higher burden than for private individuals.

Next Steps In Legal Battle Remain Unfolding

While the court has not made a final decision on the case, Judge Stickman’s earlier ruling has allowed Jakes’ defamation and conspiracy claims to move forward. The case remains in the discovery phase as both sides prepare for potential trial proceedings.

Jakes’ team has continued to assert that the delay tactics and shifting narratives are part of a deliberate plan to derail justice. They argue that the damage to Jakes’ character and work in ministry requires competitive defense in court, not dismissal by legal technicalities.

For now, the lawsuit remains active in federal court, with legal filings from both parties continuing to shape a case that is drawing broad attention due to the high-profile individuals and sensitive nature of the allegations involved.