Thomas and Gorsuch criticize SCOTUS for skipping the CNN defamation case

Supreme Court Justices Critique Decision on Dershowitz’s Defamation Case

Two conservative members of the Supreme Court expressed disappointment over the decision not to hear attorney Alan Dershowitz’s defamation lawsuit against CNN. They believe the court passed up a chance to reexamine contentious defamation standards from the 1960s.

The dissent from the conservative justices suggests a desire to revisit long-standing precedents, resonating with former President Donald Trump’s calls in 2016 to reform U.S. defamation laws.

Dershowitz, known for representing high-profile figures like Trump and O.J. Simpson, argued that CNN misrepresented his statements, damaging his reputation. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, who were appointed by President George H.W. Bush and Trump, respectively, criticized the reliance on the “actual malice” standard in assessing whether CNN defamed Dershowitz. They contended that this standard doesn’t have a basis in the Constitution, since it was established in the Supreme Court’s landmark 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

Thomas and Gorsuch noted, “As expected, Dershowitz did not prevail under the strict standard established by this court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Dershowitz is now asking the court to overturn Sullivan and related precedents.”

Responding to the court’s decision, Dershowitz told Fox News Digital that it’s nearly impossible to meet the majority’s tough criteria. “All the judges agreed that CNN lied about me,” he stated, adding that he believed he would eventually be able to challenge the established standard.

He emphasized, “However, the majority overruled the dissent and ruled that actual malice must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. I believe this impossible standard will be overturned in the coming years.”

The Sullivan case emerged when a city commissioner sued the Times for defamation over an advertisement criticizing the treatment of civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama. An Alabama jury initially found in favor of the commissioner, but the Supreme Court later overturned that ruling. The court held that a public official must prove that statements were made with “actual malice,” meaning they knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

In their dissent, Thomas and Gorsuch argued, “The standard of actual malice against public figures has nothing to do with the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.” They added that the nation’s founding generation likely felt that public figures had a stronger right to seek damages for defamation.

They referred to the Sedition Act of 1798 as an example, which imposed a lower standard for defamation against public officials. Under this law, then-Representative Matthew Ryan was indicted for calling President John Adams a man with “an endless thirst for absurd arrogance, foolish admiration, and selfish greed” amid U.S.-France tensions.

President Thomas Jefferson eventually let the law lapse and pardoned those charged under it. More recently, Trump has echoed sentiments similar to those of Thomas and Gorsuch, calling for looser defamation laws during his campaign in 2016, particularly against what he labeled “fake news.”

Trump claimed, “We’re going to open up libel laws and let people sue like they’ve never been sued before,” particularly targeting the Times and the Washington Post.

The ruling leaves the door open for the court to possibly revisit the Sullivan case and also Trump’s lawsuit against CNN concerning his use of the phrase “big lie” regarding the 2020 election. However, such developments remain uncertain in the near future.