The Supreme Court on Monday declined to revive a $300m defamation lawsuit filed against CNN, which stemmed from the network’s coverage of a prominent attorney’s remarks made during President Trump’s 2020 impeachment defense.
The court’s majority opted not to hear the case in a brief, unexplained order. However, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented, urging the court to re-evaluate the legal standards applied to public figures in defamation claims.
Alan Dershowitz, a retired Harvard Law School professor and legal commentator, alleged that the news network aired only a segment of his comments, thereby distorting his meaning to portray him as having “lost his mind,” according to court documents.
CNN maintained that numerous other media outlets had interpreted his remarks similarly, and Dershowitz failed to demonstrate CNN’s intent to mischaracterise his statements.
In his appeal, Dershowitz had pressed the court to revisit the precedent set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. This landmark First Amendment ruling established a higher bar for public figures to win libel lawsuits, requiring proof that a media outlet knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Dershowitz was a member of President Trump’s defense team during his impeachment trial, which centered on allegations that Trump sought political favors from Ukraine in exchange for US military aid. Trump was subsequently acquitted by the Senate.
At one point, 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.” He added that providing arms to Ukraine is not illegal.
He contended that CNN only broadcast a subsequent portion of his remarks: “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 this edit created the impression he was arguing a president could evade impeachment for illegal acts if committed for re-election – a concept his initial lawsuit described as “preposterous and foolish on its face.”
CNN countered that it had, in fact, aired his full remarks during live coverage and had twice invited him back to elaborate on his statements.
Lower courts had previously dismissed the lawsuit, concluding that Dershowitz failed to demonstrate CNN acted with “actual malice” in its reporting, thus falling short of the stringent standard established by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
