The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Alan Dershowitz's defamation suit against CNN, effectively ending his legal challenge over the network's coverage of his impeachment defense of Donald Trump. The justices left intact a lower court ruling that dismissed the lawsuit, which centered on CNN's characterization of Dershowitz's argument that a president cannot be impeached for conduct driven by reelection motives. Dershowitz had claimed the network misrepresented his remarks, but the 11th Circuit found he failed to prove the “actual malice” required under the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan standard.
Had the Court taken the case, Dershowitz's appeal could have undermined the “actual malice” standard that protects news organizations from libel suits by public figures. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the denial, reiterating their long-standing call to reexamine the Sullivan ruling. The lower court noted that while CNN's interpretation may have been “mistaken or even overwrought,” the evidence pointed to the reporters' sincere belief in the accuracy of their accusations. Dershowitz had urged the Court to abandon the “actual malice” test for private citizens who become public figures, but the majority declined to engage.
The decision reinforces the high bar public figures face in defamation cases, preserving a cornerstone of press freedom in the United States. The case also highlights ongoing ideological divisions on the Court, with Thomas and Gorsuch signaling openness to revisiting the Sullivan precedent. For CNN, the outcome removes a legal distraction as its parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery, navigates a planned acquisition by Paramount Skydance Corp. that could shift the network's editorial direction. What to watch next: Whether the Court's conservative wing will eventually secure a majority to reconsider the “actual malice” standard in a future case with different facts.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court's refusal to hear Dershowitz's appeal leaves the 'actual malice' standard intact for defamation cases involving public figures.
- Justices Thomas and Gorsuch signaled continued interest in overturning or narrowing the New York Times v. Sullivan precedent.
- The 11th Circuit found CNN's interpretation of Dershowitz's remarks, even if mistaken, did not meet the threshold for actual malice.
- The ruling removes a legal risk for CNN as its parent company undergoes a major ownership change.
Insights & Analysis
- The case underscores a strategic tension: conservative justices may want to weaken press protections, but they risk empowering defamation suits that could also target conservative media.
- Going forward, public figures will likely continue to test the Sullivan standard in lower courts, hoping to create a circuit split that forces Supreme Court review.