Supreme Court turns away Alan Dershowitz’s defamation suit against CNN
WASHINGTON— The Supreme Court on Monday refused to reconsider the high bar for press freedom, rejecting a defamation lawsuit filed against CNN by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. New York Times v. Sullivan case.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.
The decision not to comment could signal that the justices are not willing to revisit another turning point of the civil rights era.
However, the Dershowitz case may not be an ideal model case.
He filed a $300 million lawsuit against CNNHe claimed that his commentators distorted his claims during President Trump’s first impeachment trial before the Senate.
He lost before a federal district judge and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Citing the doctrine set out in the landmark ruling, the judges said he had presented no evidence that he showed “actual malice” or lied.
Dershowitz’s call He called on the Supreme Court to reconsider and jettison the “actual malice” rule or limit its use against private citizens treated as public figures.
In 1964, a unanimous Supreme Court said the 1st Amendment’s protection of free speech and the press limited state libel judgments.
An all-white Alabama jury awarded Montgomery city commissioner L. B. Sullivan a $500 million verdict over a fundraising ad for the Rev. Martin Luther King that ran in the New York Times.
Sullivan’s name was not mentioned in the ad, but Sullivan said he was slandered because of the ad’s criticism of police.
The court’s opinion, which reversed that decision, said the 1st Amendment was intended to protect debate and criticism of public officials.
With that goal in mind, the justices barred defamation suits for minor or honest mistakes and said plaintiffs must show defendants had “actual malice” by making statements they knew to be false or by showing a “reckless disregard” for the truth.
The decision was later expanded to include public figures such as Dershowitz.
He defended President Trump’s behavior in 2020, telling senators it did not constitute an impeachable offense.
The House of Representatives had accused Trump of threatening to withhold military aid in order to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate his political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
In response to a question about the alleged quid pro quo, Dershowitz said a president can make deals in the public interest or in his own political interest, but not for corrupt personal gain.
“If a President does something that he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of response that would result in impeachment,” he said.
This statement sparked harsh and immediate criticism on CNN.
Commentator Paul Begala suggested that “the Dershowitz doctrine would absolve presidents from any criminal activity.”
CNN released video of Dershowitz’s full deposition and invited him to appear in court twice over the next two days to clarify his comments.
Months later, he filed a lawsuit alleging defamation and saying CNN engaged in a “deliberate scheme to defraud its own viewers.”
His case was dismissed by judges who said he did not have enough evidence to send the case to trial.
“Dershowitz, in his diligent and carefully vetted representation, made a series of spontaneous statements before Congress that he said had been misinterpreted by experts.” Judge Britt Grant, a Trump appointee, wrote for the 11th Circuit Court.
“If anything, the evidence shows that they believed their reporting was accurate and formed their opinions independently. Without evidence of actual malice, Dershowitz’s defamation claim cannot proceed,” he said.
