The phrase "impugned statement" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in legal or formal contexts when referring to a statement that is being challenged or questioned in terms of its truthfulness or validity.
Example: "The defendant's lawyer argued that the impugned statement was taken out of context and misrepresented the facts."
Alternatives: "challenged statement" or "disputed statement."
If, however, the concept of fair criticism constitutes a defence, then the legal burden would shift to the alleged contemnor to show on the balance of probabilities that the impugned statement amounts to fair criticism".
The legal burden, on the other hand, would be on the Respondent to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the impugned statement does not constitute fair criticism, and that it presents a real risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.
In their ruling on Wednesday, the appeal judges said the immigration panel last November "was entitled to conclude that there is a real risk that the impugned statements will be admitted in evidence at a retrial and that, in consequence, there is a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice".
Obama's unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin.
The attorney general's office declared that statements in the book impugned the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judiciary.
"With this utterly false and defamatory statement, the defendant has ruined and impugned the reputations of these honest and courageous public servants in the eyes of millions of people," the former agents wrote in their complaint, filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan.
On cross-examination, defense lawyers impugned Mr. Timmins's credibility with questions about contradictions in the statements he had given the police.
Though plausible initially, the device of introducing non-observational terms in this way gave rise to a number of difficulties which impugned the supposedly clear distinctions between logical and empirical matters and analytic and synthetic statements (Hempel 1951, 1963).
In a statement, Mr. Williamson called Mr. Paige's assertions "categorically untrue" and said, "The Denver Post and Mr. Paige have impugned the reputation, character and values of Invesco Funds Group and its 850 employees".
That stance seriously impugned baseball's integrity.
Another declared, "Before impugning an opponent's motives, even when they legitimately may be impugned, answer his arguments".
