Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani returns to federal court amid mounting legal troubles stemming from his claims about two Georgia election workers.

According to CBS News, Giuliani faces a contempt hearing in Washington, D.C., for allegedly continuing to defame Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss despite a previous court order and a $148 million defamation verdict against him.

The latest legal development follows a series of setbacks for Giuliani, including a recent contempt ruling in Manhattan federal court for failing to disclose his financial assets. Judge Beryl Howell previously determined Giuliani's liability in the defamation case, which centered on his false claims about the mother-daughter duo's involvement in a nonexistent ballot processing scheme during the 2020 presidential election in Fulton County, Georgia.

Recent Court Appearances Highlight Mounting Legal Pressure

Giuliani's attempt to appear virtually at Friday's hearing was withdrawn after facing skepticism from the judge. His legal team cited health concerns and safety issues as reasons for the initial request.

The former mayor's court appearances have become increasingly frequent, with multiple proceedings focused on his ability to pay the substantial monetary judgment awarded to Freeman and Moss.

Financial scrutiny has intensified as Giuliani faces challenges in meeting his legal obligations. While court documents indicate he has surrendered some assets, including a vehicle, authorities maintain he has not provided complete access to his financial information. This partial compliance has complicated efforts to collect on the judgment.

The contempt proceedings in Manhattan underscore the growing pressure on Giuliani to fulfill his financial responsibilities. These developments paint a picture of mounting legal challenges for the former mayor, who continues to navigate multiple court proceedings simultaneously.

New Allegations of Defamation Despite Court Order

Freeman and Moss's legal team has presented evidence of alleged continued defamation by Giuliani. They point to his appearances on broadcast shows where he allegedly repeated claims about "quadruple counting" ballots and the transfer of hard drives meant to manipulate voting machines.

Giuliani's statement from a November 12, 2024 broadcast exemplifies their concerns:

I'm sorry they're going to sue me again for saying it, but what am I going to do but tell the truth?

The defense team contests these allegations, arguing that Giuliani has substantially complied with the consent judgment.

Their response emphasizes that Giuliani has avoided mentioning Freeman and Moss by name and has discussed Georgia ballot counting irregularities primarily in connection with other legal matters, including an Arizona indictment.

Impact of False Claims on Election Workers' Lives

The original trial revealed the devastating personal consequences of Giuliani's false allegations on Freeman and Moss.

Both women testified about the profound impact of being thrust into the public spotlight and the subsequent wave of racist threats they endured. Their testimony highlighted the real-world consequences of election-related disinformation on public servants.

An investigation conducted by Georgia's secretary of state thoroughly examined the allegations against Freeman and Moss.

The probe's findings definitively cleared both women of any wrongdoing, establishing that all claims made against them were baseless and without merit. This official vindication, however, came after significant damage to their personal and professional lives.

Final Verdict and Continuing Legal Developments

The $148 million judgment stands as one of the largest defamation awards in recent history. Freeman and Moss's legal team now seeks to ensure Giuliani's compliance with court orders prohibiting further defamation.

Their attorneys are pushing for specific measures to prevent future violations, including potential financial penalties for any additional infractions.

Throughout these proceedings, Giuliani has maintained his innocence and characterized the legal actions against him as politically motivated. His ongoing legal challenges demonstrate the complex intersection of political speech, personal accountability, and the judicial system's role in addressing election-related disinformation.