The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Alan Dershowitz's defamation case against CNN, preserving six decades of constitutional protections that make it extraordinarily difficult for public figures to win libel suits against news organizations.
Dershowitz, a prominent attorney and former Harvard Law School professor, had mounted a challenge to The New York Times v. Sullivan, the 1964 Supreme Court precedent requiring public figures to prove "actual malice" to prevail in defamation cases. That standard demands showing a news outlet published false information either knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.
The high court's refusal to intervene means CNN prevails in the underlying dispute, which stemmed from Dershowitz's representation of President Donald Trump during the first impeachment trial in 2020. Dershowitz claimed CNN commentators mischaracterized his remarks about what acts could trigger impeachment of a sitting president.
Dershowitz had argued that CNN falsely reported he said a president could never be impeached for criminal conduct. His actual position, he maintained, was that "purely corrupt" acts benefiting the president personally remain impeachable. CNN countered by noting the network had aired his full remarks and subsequently invited him on air twice to clarify his position.
A federal judge in Florida and the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals both rejected Dershowitz's $300 million suit, finding he failed to demonstrate the actual malice required under existing law.
Two conservative justices signaled openness to revisiting the Sullivan standard. Clarence Thomas wrote in a dissent that the "actual malice" requirement is too "exacting" and "bears no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution." Neil Gorsuch joined concerns Thomas has voiced for years about the precedent.
Dershowitz told NBC News the ruling was disappointing. "The only issue was whether we are able to prove malice by clear and convincing evidence, a nearly impossible burden," he said in an email. "I believe that the Court will eventually change that standard."
The case represented a potential flashpoint in an ongoing conservative push to weaken media liability protections. A decision overturning Sullivan would have exposed news organizations to far greater litigation risk from wealthy public figures, potentially chilling aggressive reporting on politicians, celebrities, and business leaders with resources to mount costly legal defenses.
CNN declined to comment on the decision.
Author Sarah Mitchell: "The Court's silence speaks volumes. With Thomas and Gorsuch clearly ready to revisit Sullivan, this outcome feels less like a final answer and more like a deferral on a question the right side of the bench is determined to raise again."
Comments