The Supreme Court rejected Alan Dershowitz’s appeal in his $300 million defamation lawsuit against CNN, preserving crucial First Amendment protections that shield news organizations from lawsuits by public figures. The decision leaves intact the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan standard requiring proof of actual malice in such cases.
Constitutional Standard Survives Challenge
Dershowitz had urged the justices to overturn or weaken the Sullivan precedent, which requires public figures to prove that false statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Both a federal judge in Florida and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the attorney, finding he failed to meet this demanding burden of proof despite alleged omissions in CNN’s commentary about his remarks.
Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision not to hear the case. Thomas criticized the actual malice standard as too difficult to satisfy, writing that it bears no relation to constitutional text, history, or structure. He suggested the Court should reconsider this protection, a position he has maintained for years.
Dispute Over Impeachment Commentary
The lawsuit stemmed from CNN’s coverage of Dershowitz’s arguments during President Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial in 2020. The Senate acquitted Trump after the House impeached him for pressuring Ukraine to investigate then-former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Dershowitz claimed CNN commentators falsely reported that he said a president could not be impeached even for criminal conduct.
Dershowitz maintained he actually argued that purely corrupt acts aimed at personal benefit remain subject to impeachment. His broader position was that Trump’s Ukraine conduct did not warrant impeachment because it did not serve private interests. Legal experts widely criticized his analysis. CNN’s attorneys noted the network aired his complete remarks and provided him two opportunities to clarify his position on air after he complained.
What This Means
The decision protects news organizations from potentially devastating litigation by wealthy public figures, including politicians, celebrities, and business leaders. Overturning Sullivan would have exposed media outlets to significantly more lawsuits and financial liability. Dershowitz told NBC News he believes the Court will eventually change the standard, calling the burden of proof nearly impossible to meet. The famed Harvard Law School professor, who has represented high-profile clients including O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein, continues to face an uphill battle in his effort to reshape defamation law.