Chandra Law Logo

New evidence reveals Congressman Max Miller’s vindictive campaign of deploying private investigators, false rumors, and PR rampages against ex-wife Emily Moreno

Tuesday, June 2, 2026

New evidence reveals Congressman Max Miller’s vindictive campaign of deploying private investigators, false rumors, and PR rampages against ex-wife Emily Moreno
Court filings accuse Congressman Max Miller of abuse.

CLEVELAND, OH – Emily Moreno has filed a supplement to her anti-SLAPP motion for expedited relief in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. The new filing brings to light evidence of Congressman Max Miller's escalating, retaliatory behavior—conduct that her legal team argues underscores exactly why Ohio’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) was enacted to protect citizens from abusive lawsuits like Miller's defamation suit against her.

Private investigators and fabricated rumors exposed

According to a newly submitted supplemental affidavit from Ms. Moreno, Congressman Miller has intensified his behind-the-scenes campaign to harass and intimidate Ms. Moreno:

  • Miller deployed a private investigator to contact Ms. Moreno’s former work colleagues, including individuals she has not worked with or spoken to in six years. There is nothing to find.

  • The same private investigator has been actively calling Ms. Moreno's personal friends since February 2026.

  • Miller has actively spread malicious rumors to acquaintances falsely claiming that Ms. Moreno engaged in an affair during their marriage.

Ms. Moreno's new affidavit refutes this "gross and false" gossip by embedding a December 27, 2025 text-message exchange with the Congressman. In the text log, when confronted about the rumor, Congressman Miller admitted to her, in writing, “I don't think you cheated on me at all.”

News website’s editor blasts Miller’s vindictive public-relations rampage

The supplemental filing also highlights a scathing May 30, 2026 column published by Cleveland.com Editor Chris Quinn, who detailed how the Congressman tried to weaponize the press to further disparage his ex-wife.

Quinn revealed that Miller offered an exclusive interview to a veteran Washington, D.C. reporter but used the opportunity entirely to launch a personal attack against Ms. Moreno. Cleveland.com killed the story, with Quinn writing:

“We, however, are not a campaign publicity arm for any candidate. No one gets a free swing like that, especially when the statements could be defamatory.”

When editors refused to run the attack piece, Quinn said, Miller's campaign threatened to leak the transcript of the interview independently. Quinn noted that he saw this "as further evidence that Miller was just trying to use us to further criticize his ex-wife."

Quinn’s column directly reinforces Moreno’s legal defense under UPEPA, explicitly stating that the domestic-abuse allegations against Congressman Miller are critical matters of public concern. Quinn noted that Moreno is the second former partner to accuse Miller of abuse and that this is the second time Miller has sued an ex-partner over it, concluding, “that is information voters deserve to know.”

Hypocrisy in Miller's court positions

Finally, the supplement exposes the deep contradiction in the Congressman's concurrent legal battles. On May 26, 2026, Miller voluntarily sought to dismiss his request for a protective order against Ms. Moreno in their domestic-relations case, grandly claiming he wanted to protect the privacy and best interests of their child. Yet, he aggressively pushes forward with this separate, legally infirm defamation lawsuit against her.

Subodh Chandra, Emily Moreno’s lead counsel, said:

According to today’s court filing, Congressman Max Miller is using his vast resources to dig up non-existent dirt, try to manipulate the media, and spread malicious rumors that his own text messages prove are outright lies. While he tries to drop a family-court action under the guise of protecting his daughter's privacy, he simultaneously continues a relentless public campaign to try to destroy her mother. This is textbook retaliatory behavior, and it is exactly the kind of retaliatory lawsuit that Ohio’s UPEPA statute mandates must be swiftly dismissed.

Ms. Moreno is represented in her defense against Congressman Miller by civil-rights attorneys Subodh Chandra and Emily Bohatch. The case is captioned Miller v. Moreno, et al., Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas General Division Case No. 26-138810, and is before Judge Joy Kennedy. The original motion under UPEPA seeking to dismiss Miller's lawsuit may be found here. Today's supplement may be found here.

About The Chandra Law Firm

The Chandra Law Firm is a boutique firm with Ohio and California practices dedicated to vindicating the rights of those facing government or corporate misconduct. The firm focuses its practice in civil rights, whistleblower protection, and First Amendment litigation.

Your case is our cause.®



What is Ohio's Anti-Slapp Statute?

Related Practice Areas
Constitutional LawDefamation (Libel and Slander)First AmendmentGovernment Ethics, Misconduct, Fraud, & AbuseWhistleblower Actions (False Claims Act)Whistleblower Program of the U.S. Department of JusticeFirst Amendment RetaliationOhio Whistleblower Protection ActCalifornia’s Anti-SLAPP StatuteOhio’s Anti-SLAPP Statute
Tags
upepafirst-amendmentanti-slappfirst-amendment-retaliationmax-milleruniform-public-expression-protection-act-(upepa)defamationemily-moreno

Making the right choice in legal representation can make the difference in whether you achieve a result that protects your legal rights and best interests.

Tell Us About Your Case