The Supreme Court refused to hear Alan Dershowitz’s bid to overturn or narrow New York Times v. Sullivan, leaving intact the rule that public figures must prove actual malice in defamation cases.
The challenge grew out of Dershowitz’s lawsuit accusing CNN of distorting his 2020 impeachment-trial comments by omitting his caveat that bribery and extortion remain impeachable offenses.
The 11th U.S. Circuit had already sided with CNN, finding no evidence its commentators or producers knowingly aired falsehoods or acted recklessly toward the truth.
Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said they would have taken the case, but the court’s refusal preserves a 1964 precedent long treated as a cornerstone of First Amendment press protections.
As defamation verdicts reach billions, is the 'actual malice' standard still a workable shield for modern journalism?
How can a 1964 press freedom law adapt to an era of AI-generated news and online misinformation?
Dershowitz v. CNN Ends at Supreme Court: "Actual Malice" Standard Survives Renewed Challenge in 2026
Overview
On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Alan Dershowitz’s appeal, ending his defamation lawsuit against CNN and upholding the 11th Circuit Court’s ruling. Dershowitz’s case arose from CNN’s coverage of his remarks during President Trump’s 2020 impeachment trial, and he raised concerns about media truthfulness in his appeal. Notably, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neal Gorsuch dissented, questioning the 'actual malice' standard that makes it difficult for public figures to win defamation cases. Their dissent highlights ongoing debate about the balance between press freedom and protecting reputations in today’s media landscape.