The Supreme Court on Monday refused to revive a $300 million defamation lawsuit filed by prominent attorney Alan Dershowitz against CNN over its coverage of his remarks made while defending President Donald Trump during the 2020 impeachment trial. The majority declined to hear the case in a brief, unexplained order, while Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented, calling for the court to reconsider the legal standards for public figures claiming defamation.
Background of the Case
Dershowitz, a retired Harvard Law School professor and legal commentator, was part of Trump's defense team during his impeachment trial over allegations that Trump sought political favors from Ukraine in exchange for U.S. military aid. Trump was ultimately acquitted by the Senate. During the trial, Dershowitz responded to a question by stating, "the only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were somehow illegal," adding that providing arms to Ukraine is not illegal.
He alleged that CNN aired only a portion of his subsequent comment: "Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest and, mostly, they are right, your election is in the public interest, and 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 claimed the edit distorted his meaning, making him appear to argue that a president could avoid impeachment for illegal acts if done to aid reelection—a concept his original suit called "preposterous and foolish on its face."
CNN's Defense and Lower Court Rulings
CNN countered that it aired Dershowitz's full remarks during live coverage and invited him twice more to expand on his meaning. The network argued that multiple outlets had interpreted his remarks similarly, and Dershowitz could not show that CNN acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Lower courts dismissed the suit, finding that Dershowitz failed to demonstrate "actual malice" as required under the landmark First Amendment case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
In his appeal, Dershowitz urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the Sullivan standard, which makes it harder for public figures to win libel lawsuits by requiring proof that an outlet knowingly published false information or showed reckless disregard for the truth. The Court's refusal to hear the case leaves that standard intact for now.
Dissenting Opinions
Justices Gorsuch and Thomas dissented from the denial, expressing interest in revisiting the Sullivan standard. Thomas has previously criticized the decision, arguing it gives media outlets broad protection that may not align with the original understanding of the First Amendment. Gorsuch joined Thomas's dissent, suggesting the Court should reconsider the actual malice requirement in defamation cases involving public figures.
