WASHINGTON- On Monday, the Supreme Court dismissed Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz's defamation lawsuit against CNN, refusing to reconsider the high standard for press freedom set in New York Times v. Sullivan.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.
The no-comment decision may indicate that the justices are not eager to revisit another milestone of the civil rights era.
But Dershowitz's lawsuit may not have been an ideal test case.
He sued CNN for $300 million, alleging its commentators distorted his arguments during President Trump's first Senate impeachment trial.
He lost before a federal district judge and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. The judges said he had presented no evidence of “actual malice” or conscious falsehoods, citing doctrine established in the landmark decision.
Dershowitz's appeal urged the Supreme Court to reconsider and throw out the “actual malice” rule or limit its use against private citizens who are treated as public figures.
In 1964, a unanimous Supreme Court said that the First Amendment protection of free speech and the press limited state libel verdicts.
An all-white jury in Alabama had awarded a $500 million judgment to Montgomery City Commissioner LB Sullivan for a fundraising ad for the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. that had appeared in the New York Times.
The ad did not mention Sullivan by name, but said he was defamed by the ad's criticism of police.
Overturning that verdict, the court's opinion said the First Amendment was intended to protect debate and criticism of public officials.
With that goal in mind, the judges barred defamation suits for minor or honest mistakes and said plaintiffs must show that defendants showed “actual malice” by making statements they knew were false or showed a “reckless disregard” for the truth.
The decision was later expanded to include public figures like Dershowitz.
In 2020, he defended President Trump's conduct and told senators that it did not constitute an impeachable offense.
The House had accused Trump of threatening to withhold military aid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son Hunter.
In response to a question about a supposed quid pro quo, Dershowitz said a president can make deals that are in the public interest or 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 quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” he said.
That statement provoked harsh and immediate criticism on CNN.
Commentator Paul Begala stated that “the Dershowitz doctrine would make presidents immune from all criminal acts.”
CNN aired the full video of Dershowitz's testimony and invited him to appear twice over the next two days to clarify his comments.
Months later, he filed a defamation lawsuit, saying CNN had perpetrated “a deliberate scheme to defraud its own audience.”
His lawsuit was dismissed by judges who said he did not have enough evidence to send the case to trial.
“In his zealous and highly scrutinized representation, Dershowitz made a series of offhand comments before Congress that he claimed were misinterpreted by experts,” wrote Judge Britt Grant, a Trump appointee to the 11th Circuit Court.
“If anything, the evidence shows that they believed the truth of their reports and that they formed their opinions independently. Without evidence of actual malice, Dershowitz's defamation lawsuit cannot proceed,” he said.
