Hoosier Enquirer

Your Source for Indiana News

Indiana News

Breaking News

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

top of page

Former Marion County Fairgrounds Employee wins $310k against Former Indianapolis Mayor Candidate

2 hours ago
1 min read

Thursday, September 9th, 2026

Indianapolis, Indiana

Written by Abdul Hakim Muhammad


In a significant legal development, former Indianapolis Mayor Candidate Abdul-Hakim Shabazz who lost in the 2023 Republican Primary has been ordered to pay a staggering $310,000 in damages following a recent court ruling. The case, identified as Abdul-Hakim Shabazz v. Jerimiah Tevebaugh, was filed under case number 34C01-2411-CT-003954 in the Howard Circuit Court on November 20, 2024, and reached a decisive conclusion on January 8, 2026. Jeremiah worked as a Marion County Fairgrounds back in the early 2020's.


During today’s hearing, the presiding judge ruled that Shabazz must pay $61,000 in attorney fees along with an additional $250,000 in punitive damages. This ruling stems from the court's determination that Shabazz, as a public figure, was not protected under the Indiana Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law, which is designed to safeguard individuals from frivolous lawsuits aimed at silencing their free speech.


This legal setback for Shabazz follows a series of challenges he faced in recent years. Notably, he lost a lawsuit to John Schmitz, a former mayoral candidate and congressional hopeful, and was also defeated in 2023 by Gabe Whitley, another former congressional candidate. Additionally, he faced opposition from David Waters, a former state house representative.


The implications of this ruling are significant, not only for Shabazz but also for public figures navigating the complexities of defamation and free speech laws. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this case serves as a reminder of the potential consequences that can arise when public figures engage in contentious disputes.

bottom of page