The Supreme Court refused Monday to revive a $300 million defamation lawsuit filed against CNN over its coverage of a prominent attorney’s remarks made while defending President Donald Trump during his 2020 impeachment.
The majority declined to take up the case in a brief, unexplained order. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented, calling on the court to reconsider the legal standards for public figures who claim defamation.
Alan Dershowitz said the news network aired only a portion of the comment made during his defense of the president, distorting his meaning to make him look like he’d “lost his mind,” according to court documents.
The network said that multiple outlets had interpreted his remarks in a similar way, and Dershowitz couldn’t show CNN was trying to mischaracterize what he said.
In his appeal, Dershowitz had urged the court to reconsider New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The landmark First Amendment case that made it harder for public figures to win libel lawsuits because it requires proof that an outlet knowingly published something false, or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.
Dershowitz, a retired Harvard Law School professor and legal commentator, was part of Trump’s defense team during his impeachment trial over allegations that Trump wanted political favors from Ukraine in return for U.S. military aid. Trump was acquitted by the Senate.
Dershowitz responded to a question at one point by saying, “the only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were somehow illegal.” Providing arms to Ukraine, he said, isn’t illegal.
He alleged that CNN only played what he said 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.”
Dershowitz said the edit made it seem like he was arguing a president could avoid impeachment for illegal acts as long as he was doing it to get reelected – a concept his original suit called “preposterous and foolish on its face.”
CNN countered by saying it did air his full remarks during its live coverage, and invited him on twice more to expand on his meaning.
Lower courts tossed out the suit, finding that Dershowitz hadn’t shown CNN acted with “actual malice” in its reporting, making it fall short of the standard set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to revive a $300 million defamation lawsuit filed against CNN by attorney Alan Dershowitz, known for his role in defending former President Donald Trump during the 2020 impeachment trial. The lawsuit stemmed from Dershowitz’s claim that CNN misrepresented his comments during the impeachment proceedings, which he argued distorted his meaning and made him appear irrational.
The Supreme Court issued a brief order explaining their decision not to take up the case, with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissenting. They expressed a desire for the court to reconsider the legal standards governing defamation claims made by public figures. This reflects ongoing tensions surrounding First Amendment protections, particularly in cases involving powerful media organizations and prominent individuals.
Dershowitz’s lawsuit was rooted in his assertion that CNN selectively aired parts of his remarks, which he gave while defending Trump against allegations of misconduct related to his dealings with Ukraine. Specifically, he stated that the only condition that would render a quid pro quo unlawful would be if the “quo” was illegal. He further elaborated that providing arms to Ukraine was not illegal. However, CNN aired an edited version of his comments, which he argued led viewers to misinterpret his position. Dershowitz claimed that this editing suggested he was arguing that a president could escape impeachment for illegal acts if the intent was to benefit his re-election. He described this interpretation as “preposterous and foolish on its face.”
In response, CNN maintained that it had aired Dershowitz’s full comments during its live broadcast. The network also pointed out that Dershowitz had been invited back on air multiple times to clarify his statements, indicating an effort to provide a comprehensive view of his position. CNN asserted that multiple news outlets had interpreted his comments similarly, supporting their defense against the defamation claim.
The case’s legal foundation was heavily influenced by the landmark Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which established a higher standard for public figures to prove defamation. Under this ruling, public figures must demonstrate that a media outlet acted with “actual malice,” meaning that it knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Lower courts had previously dismissed Dershowitz’s lawsuit, determining that he had not met this burden of proof against CNN.
In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Dershowitz urged the justices to reconsider the standard established by the Sullivan case, arguing that it presented an undue barrier for public figures seeking justice against perceived media misrepresentation. His contention reflects a broader debate about the balance between protecting freedom of the press and ensuring accountability for potentially defamatory statements made by media organizations.
Dershowitz’s involvement in Trump’s impeachment defense was significant. During the trial, he argued that Trump’s actions could not constitute an impeachable offense if they were believed to be in the public interest. Trump was ultimately acquitted by the Senate, but the impeachment proceedings heightened scrutiny of public discourse and media reporting on political figures.
This case illustrates the complex dynamics between public figures and the media, particularly in politically charged environments. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case underscores the challenges that individuals like Dershowitz face in navigating defamation claims, especially when the legal precedents favor the protection of press freedom.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision not to revive Dershowitz’s lawsuit against CNN highlights ongoing legal and societal questions surrounding defamation, media accountability, and First Amendment rights in the context of public discourse. As media continues to play a pivotal role in shaping public perception, the implications of this ruling may resonate in future cases involving defamation and the rights of public figures.
