The US Supreme Court declined to revive Alan Dershowitz’s USD 300 million defamation lawsuit against CNN over edited coverage of remarks made during President Donald Trump’s 2020 impeachment defence. The court issued a brief order, while Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented and urged a fresh look at public-figure libel standards set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
International
-Sathish Raman
The Supreme Court declined to reopen a USD 300 million defamation case brought by Alan Dershowitz against CNN. The lawsuit challenged how CNN presented comments Alan Dershowitz made while defending President Donald Trump. The court issued a short order and gave no explanation. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas disagreed with the decision.
The US Supreme Court declined to revive Alan Dershowitz’s USD 300 million defamation lawsuit against CNN over edited coverage of remarks made during President Donald Trump’s 2020 impeachment defence. The court issued a brief order, while Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented and urged a fresh look at public-figure libel standards set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
Alan Dershowitz argued that CNN aired only part of a longer exchange. Court papers said the edit changed the meaning. Alan Dershowitz claimed it made Alan Dershowitz appear irrational. CNN replied that other news outlets understood the remarks similarly. CNN also said Alan Dershowitz could not prove an effort to misrepresent.
Supreme Court decision and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan standards
In the appeal, Alan Dershowitz asked the court to revisit New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. That First Amendment ruling set a high bar for public figures in libel cases. It requires proof that a publisher knew something was false. It also covers cases where reporting showed reckless disregard for the truth. Lower courts applied that test.
Lower courts dismissed the case because Alan Dershowitz did not show “actual malice\”. Judges said the evidence did not meet the Sullivan standard. The Supreme Court’s order left those rulings in place. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented. Both urged the court to reconsider rules for defamation claims by public figures.
CNN coverage dispute and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan context
Alan Dershowitz, a retired Harvard Law School professor and legal commentator, served on President Donald Trump’s defence team. The impeachment trial involved allegations about Ukraine and US military aid. President Donald Trump was acquitted by the Senate. The disputed remarks came during that defence and later TV coverage.
During the exchange, Alan Dershowitz said, \”the only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were somehow illegal. Providing arms to Ukraine, he said, isnt illegal.\” Alan Dershowitz claimed the network later highlighted a different portion. Alan Dershowitz said that selection changed how audiences understood the full answer.
Alan Dershowitz said CNN played only what came moments later: \”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.\” Alan Dershowitz said the clip gave a misleading impression.
Alan Dershowitz argued the edit suggested a president could escape impeachment for illegal acts. Alan Dershowitz’s suit described that idea as preposterous and foolish on its face. CNN disputed the claim and said it carried the full remarks live. CNN also said it invited Alan Dershowitz on twice again. CNN said those appearances allowed Alan Dershowitz to clarify meaning.
The Supreme Court’s refusal ends Alan Dershowitz’s attempt to revive the USD 300 million claim against CNN. The dismissal keeps the focus on the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan \”actual malice\” requirement. The case also records a fresh call from Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. They wanted a review of public-figure defamation rules.
With inputs from PTI
