Thomas, Gorsuch Urge Court to Revisit 1964 Libel Standard in CNN Defamation Case
Updated
Updated · Fox News · Jun 29
Thomas, Gorsuch Urge Court to Revisit 1964 Libel Standard in CNN Defamation Case
3 articles · Updated · Fox News · Jun 29
Summary
Two Supreme Court justices — Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — said the court erred by refusing to hear Alan Dershowitz’s bid to overturn the “actual malice” rule after he lost his defamation case against CNN.
Their dissent argued the standard from the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan ruling is not grounded in the Constitution and makes public-figure libel claims exceptionally hard to win.
Dershowitz says CNN deceptively edited his Trump impeachment comments about a “quid pro quo,” and he told Fox News Digital that even judges who found CNN lied still required proof of actual malice.
The dispute revives a long-running conservative push against Sullivan that aligns with Donald Trump’s calls since 2016 to loosen libel laws; the court still left the precedent intact for now.
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.