Supreme Court Asked to Revisit Landmark 1964 Defamation Precedent
The United States Supreme Court is being asked to reconsider one of the most consequential First Amendment rulings of the modern era — a decision that has shaped the legal landscape for media liability for more than six decades.
Attorneys representing renowned Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz have petitioned the High Court to review a lower-court ruling involving CNN, arguing that a 62-year-old precedent has effectively insulated major media institutions from accountability.
Court records indicate the justices are expected to decide soon whether to grant review. On February 4, the Court announced that the case would be discussed at a conference scheduled for February 20, according to Newsweek. In a notable development, the Supreme Court formally requested that CNN respond to Dershowitz’s petition for a writ of certiorari after the network previously declined to do so.
At the center of the dispute is New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the landmark case that established the “actual malice” standard for defamation claims involving public officials.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Under Sullivan, public officials must prove that defamatory statements were made with “actual malice” — meaning the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Over time, the standard has been extended to public figures more broadly, creating a high legal threshold for defamation suits against major media outlets.
Dershowitz’s petition asks the Court to reconsider that doctrine entirely — or at minimum, to limit its scope, particularly “in relation to private citizens who assume public figure status.”
The case stems from CNN’s coverage of remarks Dershowitz delivered on January 29, 2020, while serving as constitutional counsel to President Donald J. Trump during impeachment proceedings in the United States Senate.
CNN
According to the petition, CNN aired commentary that mischaracterized his Senate floor remarks and omitted critical qualifying language. Dershowitz argues that the network failed to distinguish between constitutionally grounded discussions of impeachment standards and hypothetical conduct motivated by personal gain.
In response to a question from Senator Ted Cruz regarding a potential quid pro quo, Dershowitz outlined three categories of presidential conduct: actions taken in the public interest, actions influenced by electoral considerations, and actions motivated by personal financial gain. He made clear that the latter would constitute corruption.
Dershowitz stated:
“If a hypothetical President of the United States said to a hypothetical leader of a foreign country: Unless you build a hotel with my name on it and unless you give me a million-dollar kickback, I will withhold the funds. That is an easy case. That is purely corrupt and in the purely private interest,”
His legal team contends that CNN commentators ignored this crucial clarification. In the petition, his attorneys wrote:
“Though CNN indisputably possessed the complete video and transcript of his statement, … its commentators systematically disregarded the qualifying language that gave Dershowitz’s statement its true meaning, attributing to him a position he had expressly rejected: that presidents could engage in any conduct whatsoever, including bribery and extortion, without committing an impeachable offense,”
Dershowitz filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Florida defamation law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CNN, and lower courts held that Sullivan’s actual malice standard barred recovery.
Now, his legal team argues that the media environment of 1964 bears little resemblance to the digital ecosystem of today — where cable news networks, social media platforms, and online outlets shape public perception at unprecedented speed and scale.
In their petition, attorneys Jay Alan Sekulow, Jordan A. Sekulow, Stuart J. Roth, Walter M. Weber, Christina A. Compagnone, Benjamin P. Sisney, Geoffrey R. Surtees and Nathan J. Moelker wrote:
“Indeed, after more than half a century of experience with Sullivan, the time has come for this Court to overrule or limit Sullivan in light of experience and the vastly changed meaning of ‘press’ in the internet age.”
For constitutional originalists and advocates of media accountability, the case raises a fundamental question: Should a precedent crafted in the era of print newspapers continue to shield trillion-dollar media conglomerates operating in a radically transformed information marketplace?
Whether the Supreme Court ultimately agrees to hear the case could signal how willing the current Court is to revisit foundational First Amendment doctrine — and whether the balance between free speech protections and accountability for false reporting will be recalibrated in the digital age.