Two of the Supreme Court\u2019s conservative justices criticized the majority\u2019s decision not to take up attorney Alan Dershowitz\u2019s defamation case against CNN, saying the high court missed an opportunity to revisit a controversial 1960s defamation precedent.
\nThe dissent from the court\u2019s conservative wing effectively called on the justices to revisit long-standing libel precedent, echoing President Donald Trump\u2019s 2016 calls to loosen U.S. libel laws.
\nDershowitz, who has represented famous figures like Trump, O.J. Simpson and Leona Helmsley, claimed CNN deceptively edited a snippet of his defense during Trump\u2019s first impeachment trial about \u201cquid pro quo[s]\u201d to make it sound like he said the opposite of his fuller statements and used that clip to damage his reputation.
\nJustices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch \u2014 appointees of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Trump, respectively \u2014 criticized their colleagues for relying on the \u201cactual malice\u201d standard in evaluating whether CNN defamed Dershowitz, arguing the standard is not rooted in the Constitution and instead was created in the Supreme Court\u2019s landmark 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
\nISRAELI PM NETANYAHU INITIATING DEFAMATION LAWSUIT AGAINST NEW YORK TIMES OVER CONTROVERSIAL \u2018DOG RAPE\u2019 STORY<\/p>\n
\u201cPredictably, Dershowitz did not prevail under that exacting standard, which this Court created in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Dershowitz now asks this Court to overrule Sullivan and related precedents,\u201d the conservatives wrote.
\nDershowitz also reacted to the dissent in remarks to Fox News Digital, calling the majority\u2019s standard \u201cimpossible\u201d to overcome.
\n\u201cAll the judges agreed that CNN lied about me,\u201d he said Monday.
\n\u201cBut the majority ruled, over dissents, that I had to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence\u2014 an impossible standard that I believe will be overruled in years to come.\u201d
\nThe Sullivan case arose after a Montgomery, Alabama, commissioner sued the Times for libel over a full-page advertisement criticizing how the city treated civil rights protesters.
\nAn Alabama jury awarded damages to L.B. Sullivan even though he was not mentioned by name in the ad. The Supreme Court later reversed the ruling, holding that a public official cannot prevail in a defamation case unless he proves the statement was made with \u201cactual malice\u201d \u2014 knowing it was false or acting with reckless disregard for the truth.
\n\u201cThe actual-malice standard for public figures bears no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution,\u201d Thomas and Gorsuch wrote Monday in Dershowitz\u2019 case.
\n\u201cInstead, the founding generation believed that, if anything, public figures had stronger claims for damages when they were defamed.\u201d
\nAs one historical example, Thomas and Gorsuch pointed to the Sedition Act of 1798, which imposed a far lower threshold for defamatory statements about public officials.
\nThen-Rep. Matthew Lyon, D-Vt., was prosecuted under the law for characterizing President John Adams as someone with \u201cunbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation and selfish avarice\u201d during American tensions with France.
\nJUDGE DISMISSES TRUMP\u2019S $10B DEFAMATION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE WALL STREET JOURNAL OVER EPSTEIN STORY<\/p>\n
President Thomas Jefferson allowed that law to expire in 1801 and pardoned many caught in its net.
\nMore recently, Trump has called for loosening U.S. libel laws, echoing concerns similar to those expressed by Thomas and Gorsuch about the court\u2019s defamation jurisprudence.
\nWhile running for president in 2016, Trump pledged to \u201copen up our libel laws\u201d if elected to pursue the ideological conglomerate he often labels \u201cfake news.\u201d
\nSIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
\nJournalists who \u201cwrite purposefully negative and horrible and false articles \u2014 we can sue them and win lots of money,\u201d Trump said.
\nHe has often singled out defendant CNN more than most \u2013 famously warring regularly with its then-White House correspondent, podcaster Jim Acosta.
\nDuring one 2017 incident, Acosta repeatedly interrupted Trump during a news conference, leading the president to demand he not \u201cbe rude.\u201d.\u201d Trump informed Acosta that he would not be taking a question from him because \u201cyou are fake news.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re going to open up libel laws, and we\u2019re going to have people sue you like you\u2019ve never got sued before,\u201d Trump said at the 2016 event, going on to further name-drop the Times and Washington Post.
\nThe ruling, along with Trump\u2019s own lawsuit against the Ted Turner-founded network over its use of the term \u201cBig Lie\u201d to describe his claims about the 2020 election, leaves open the possibility that the court could revisit Sullivan, though such a shift appears unlikely in the near term.
\nFox News Digital reached out to CNN for comment on the dissent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"