TL;DR
- Supreme Court declines to hear Dershowitz’s appeal.
- Upholds protections for media in defamation cases.
- Dershowitz’s claim centered on impeachment comments.
- Conservative justices disagreed with the decision.
- ‘Actual malice’ standard remains intact.
In a move that has left Alan Dershowitz fuming, the Supreme Court has decided to pass on hearing his defamation case against CNN. This decision isn’t just a personal setback for the famed law professor and attorney; it’s a significant win for media protections across the board. The ruling maintains the long-standing precedent set by the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case, which requires public figures to prove “actual malice” in defamation claims.
Dershowitz, who made headlines for his role in defending Donald Trump during the first impeachment trial, had hoped the justices would reconsider the stringent standards that have made it nearly impossible for public figures like him to win defamation lawsuits. After losing in lower courts, he argued that the requirement to demonstrate actual malice—essentially proving that the media acted with knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth—was an unfair burden.
In a dissenting opinion, conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch expressed their disagreement with the court’s decision. Thomas, in particular, has been vocal about his belief that the actual malice standard is excessively rigorous. He stated, “The ‘actual malice’ standard for public figures bears no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.” Well, Clarence, maybe it’s time to pick a different fight.
Dershowitz’s defamation claim stems from comments he made during the impeachment trial, where he argued that a president could not be impeached for actions that do not benefit him personally. CNN commentators, however, claimed he suggested a president could be immune from impeachment even if a crime was committed. Dershowitz’s lawyers argued that CNN misrepresented his statements, but the courts found that the network had aired his full remarks and even invited him back on air to clarify his position.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond Dershowitz. If the Supreme Court had chosen to overturn or weaken the Sullivan ruling, it would have opened the floodgates for wealthy public figures to sue media organizations, potentially leading to a chilling effect on journalism. Imagine the chaos if every celebrity and politician could easily sue for defamation—newsrooms would be drowning in litigation.
As the dust settles on this legal battle, it’s clear that the Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the critical role of the press in holding public figures accountable. While Dershowitz may be licking his wounds, the media can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that their reporting is still protected under the law. For now, the actual malice standard remains a formidable barrier against frivolous lawsuits from the rich and famous.
In the end, Dershowitz might want to take a cue from the very media he’s trying to take down: sometimes, it’s better to let the story unfold than to try to rewrite it yourself.