The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a defamation case brought by attorney Alan Dershowitz against CNN, but two conservative justices dissented, calling for a reconsideration of a landmark 1964 ruling that set a high bar for defamation lawsuits involving public figures.
Core Facts:
- Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented in the court's decision not to take up Dershowitz's case, arguing the court should revisit New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which established the "actual malice" standard for defamation.
- Dershowitz sued CNN in 2020, claiming the network deceptively edited his remarks during Trump's first impeachment trial, damaging his reputation.
Deeper Context:
The 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan requires public figures to prove "actual malice"—meaning the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth—to win defamation cases. Thomas and Gorsuch argued this standard is not constitutionally rooted and should be revisited.
Dershowitz, who has represented high-profile clients like Donald Trump and O.J. Simpson, criticized the court's majority for upholding the "impossible" standard. CNN declined to comment on the dissent.
The case stems from a 2020 CNN segment that Dershowitz claims misrepresented his defense of Trump during the impeachment trial, suggesting he supported a "quid pro quo" when he argued the opposite. The majority of the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the Sullivan precedent intact.