On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, preserving the high bar for public figures to win libel or defamation damages. Alan Dershowitz’s attempt to challenge how that standard applies to CNN commentators failed, even
WASHINGTON — By the end of the Supreme Court’s June 29 decision, Alan Dershowitz’s fight over his CNN defamation claim was effectively over.
The court declined to revisit a landmark ruling on press freedom that limits when a public figure can sue for libel or defamation. Dershowitz. a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School. asked the justices to overturn or modify the 1964 standard after he alleged CNN defamed him while he was defending President Donald Trump from impeachment.
The justices kept standing the rule established in New York Times v. Sullivan. In that 1964 decision. the court ruled that a newspaper could not be sued for damages unless the journalists knew they were publishing false information about a public official or were reckless about whether they had checked.
Dershowitz’s central complaint was that the standard has “devolved into near-absolute immunity for media defendants, even when they profoundly misrepresent verifiable public statements.”
Two of the court’s six conservative justices — Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — said they would have taken the case, underscoring that at least part of the bench was open to revisiting how aggressively the protection should apply in practice.
Dershowitz’s case grew out of the Senate’s 2020 impeachment trial involving whether Trump withheld military funds to pressure Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden. In that setting. Dershowitz alleged that CNN “systematically distorted” comments he made during the trial about the scope of impeachable offenses.
His lawyers told the Supreme Court that commentators who criticized Dershowitz’s argument about presidential impeachment involving an exchange of favors motivated by a desire to get re-elected left out Dershowitz’s qualification that “bribery and extortion are still impeachable offenses.” Their argument was that the missing qualifier flipped the meaning of his position.
They said, “The result was to turn Dershowitz’s meaning on its head.”
The dispute took on a sharper edge because. according to the filings. one CNN headline read: “Alan Dershowitz argues presidential quid pro quos aimed at reelection are not impeachable.” Dershowitz’s case was built around the claim that viewers were left with a distorted impression of what he was actually arguing.
At the appeals level, the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge’s ruling in favor of CNN. The appeals court said the “available evidence points to the reporters’ sincere − if mistaken or even overwrought − belief in the truth of their accusations.”
Judge Britt Grant wrote for the court that Dershowitz — who “no one disputes is a public figure” — had “presented no evidence that CNN’s commentators or producers acted with actual malice.”
When Dershowitz appealed to the Supreme Court, he argued that the media has “grown disdainful of the truth” and that the internet has “vastly exacerbated the harm.”
CNN’s response was that the network showed Dershowitz’s full remarks and gave him air time to respond to the criticisms. The company’s lawyers also argued that New York Times v. Sullivan “remains the bedrock for six decades of First Amendment decisions that have prevented censorship.”
In a filing, CNN’s lawyers said, “Because Sullivan is a cornerstone of modern constitutional law,” the court could not remove the decision without causing “lasting damage to a wide range of precedent.”
All of it came down to the same tension the justices refused to reopen: how far the First Amendment shield should extend when a public figure claims the media got it wrong, and what burden must be met to turn that dispute into a damages lawsuit.
With the Supreme Court declining to revisit the rule on June 29, the message for future defamation fights is clear — the Sullivan standard remains the gatekeeping mechanism, and proving “actual malice” is still the path plaintiffs must follow.
Supreme Court New York Times v. Sullivan press freedom libel defamation Alan Dershowitz CNN First Amendment actual malice Trump impeachment Joe Biden Ukraine military funds