The Supreme Court declined on Monday to revive a $300 million defamation lawsuit filed by Alan Dershowitz against CNN, leaving in place a legal standard that makes it difficult for public figures to win libel cases.
Dershowitz, a retired Harvard Law professor, sued CNN in 2020 after the network’s coverage of remarks he made while defending President Donald Trump during one of his first-term impeachment trials. Dershowitz claimed CNN had edited his statement in a way that made him appear to argue that a president could avoid impeachment for illegal acts as long as he believed his re-election was in the nation’s best interest—a position he called “preposterous and foolish on its face.”
The lawsuit centered on a question posed by Senator Ted Cruz about whether Trump’s conduct constituted impeachable conduct. Dershowitz responded by saying “the only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were somehow illegal.” According to The Guardian, CNN then aired only a subsequent remark in which Dershowitz stated that “if the president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.” Dershowitz contended the network’s selective editing misrepresented his full argument.
Lower Courts Dismiss Case on Legal Grounds
Both the federal district court in Florida and a unanimous panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Dershowitz’s case, finding he had failed to show that CNN acted with “actual malice”—the legal standard required for public figures to win defamation suits. The actual malice standard, established in the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, requires that a public figure prove a media outlet knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Dershowitz urged the justices to reconsider the Sullivan standard itself, arguing that the landmark ruling had “morphed into an impregnable fortress that protects media irresponsibility while denying public figures any remedy for egregious misrepresentations.” CNN’s lawyers countered that the actual malice standard remains “a pillar of modern” First Amendment law and that overruling it would cause lasting damage to press freedom.
The Supreme Court’s unsigned order provided no explanation for its decision to decline the case. However, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented, signaling openness to reconsidering the Sullivan standard. The dissent underscores an ongoing debate within the conservative wing of the Court about whether the 60-year-old precedent strikes the right balance between press freedom and the reputational interests of public figures.
Sources
- The Guardian — Supreme Court decision to deny Dershowitz’s petition, details of his lawsuit and remarks, CNN’s legal arguments
- Reuters — Dershowitz’s petition to the Supreme Court and background on the case
- Courthouse News — 11th Circuit panel decision dismissing the defamation claims
- The National Constitution Center — Background on Dershowitz’s case and the Sullivan standard
