The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Alan Dershowitz’s appeal in his defamation lawsuit against CNN, effectively upholding the 1964 landmark ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The decision leaves intact the legal standard requiring public figures to prove "actual malice" to win defamation cases against media outlets.
Core Facts
The court’s refusal to take up the case means Dershowitz’s $300 million lawsuit against CNN will not proceed. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing the "actual malice" standard is too difficult to meet. Dershowitz, a prominent attorney and former Harvard Law professor, had sued CNN for allegedly distorting his remarks during President Donald Trump’s 2020 impeachment trial.
Dissenting Opinions
Thomas wrote in his dissent that the "actual malice" standard "bears no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution." Gorsuch joined the dissent, signaling potential future challenges to the precedent. Dershowitz told NBC News he believes the court will eventually change the standard, calling the current burden "nearly impossible" to meet.
Background Context
The case centered on Dershowitz’s representation of Trump during the first impeachment trial, where he argued that a president’s actions could not be impeached unless the "quo" in a quid pro quo was illegal. CNN reported on his remarks, which Dershowitz claimed were taken out of context. Lower courts ruled that Dershowitz failed to prove CNN acted with actual malice.
Implications for Press Freedom
The decision reinforces protections for media outlets when reporting on public figures. Legal experts note that overturning or weakening the Sullivan standard could expose news organizations to costly litigation, potentially chilling investigative journalism. The case was closely watched as a potential test of the court’s willingness to revisit civil rights-era precedents.