The US Supreme Court has declined to revive a $300 million defamation lawsuit filed by former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz against CNN. The case centered on the network's editing of remarks Dershowitz made while defending Donald Trump during an impeachment trial. In a brief, unexplained order on Monday, the majority refused to hear the case, leaving in place the legal standards for public figures claiming defamation. Conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented, calling for the Supreme Court to reconsider those standards.
Background of the lawsuit
Dershowitz, 87, sued CNN in 2020, alleging that the outlet slandered and libeled him through its editing of a comment he made to the Senate while defending Trump during one of his impeachment trials. He claimed the revision made it falsely appear that he "had lost his mind." The lawsuit centered on a question by Senator Ted Cruz about whether an allegation that Trump wanted to trade Ukrainian political favors for US military aid could be grounds for conviction. Dershowitz responded: "The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were somehow illegal." He said CNN only played an ensuing remark: "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."
Allegations of defamation
Dershowitz contended that by playing the second comment, CNN made it appear that he was arguing a president could avoid impeachment for illegal acts as long as he believed his re-election was in the nation's best interest. He called that notion "preposterous and foolish on its face" and said it falsely painted him "as a constitutional scholar and intellect who has lost his mind." He also claimed CNN engaged in "a deliberate scheme to defraud its own audience" at his expense. A lower court tossed out the lawsuit, finding Dershowitz had not shown CNN acted with "actual malice" in its reporting, falling short of the standard set by New York Times Co v. Sullivan in 1964. That ruling makes it harder for public figures to win libel lawsuits by requiring proof that an outlet knowingly published something false or showed reckless disregard for the truth.
Appeal and dissent
In his appeal, Dershowitz urged the court to reconsider Times v. Sullivan, saying the case had "morphed into an impregnable fortress that protects media irresponsibility while denying public figures any remedy for egregious misrepresentations." Lawyers for CNN argued that the 1964 ruling is a "cornerstone of modern constitutional law" and overruling it would do lasting damage. They wrote that the actual-malice standard is "a pillar of modern" law related to free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, which are "necessary for self-determination in a democratic society while still ensuring effective recourse for public-official and public-figure plaintiffs." The Associated Press contributed reporting.
