Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Alan Dershowitz Defamation Appeal, Leaving “Actual Malice” Standard Intact
6/29/2026, 11:06:40 PM
Supreme Court Refuses to Review Dershowitz v. CNN
On June 29 2026 the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari filed by former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz seeking review of a $300 million defamation suit against CNN. The denial leaves in place a 2023 Florida district-court ruling and an August 2025 decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that dismissed the suit. The case arose from CNN’s coverage of remarks Dershowitz made while defending former President Donald Trump during the Senate’s first impeachment trial in 2020.
Legal Background: New York Times v. Sullivan and the “Actual Malice” Standard
The Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in *New York Times Co. v. Sullivan* established that a public official—or, by later extension, a public figure—must prove “actual malice” to succeed in a defamation claim. “Actual malice” requires clear and convincing evidence that the defendant knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth. The doctrine was intended to protect robust debate about public officials and to prevent the chilling effect of libel suits.
The Defamation Claim: Allegations and Lower-Court Findings
Dershowitz alleged that CNN edited a clip of his Senate testimony, making it appear he said a president could not be impeached even for a criminal act, and that the network portrayed him as having “lost his mind.” He characterized the coverage as a “deliberate scheme to defraud its own audience.” The district court found no evidence of actual malice, noting that CNN aired Dershowitz’s full remarks and gave him two on-air opportunities to clarify. The 11th Circuit affirmed, emphasizing that CNN’s commentators believed their statements were “fair and accurate.”
Key Players
- Alan Dershowitz – retired Harvard law professor, former member of Trump’s impeachment defense team.
- CNN – news network owned by Warner Bros. Discovery; represented by Gibson Dunn & Cochrane and Davis Wright Tremaine.
- Justice Clarence Thomas – authored a dissent arguing the “actual malice” rule is unrelated to the Constitution.
- Justice Neil Gorsuch – joined Thomas’s dissent and warned that the 1964 media environment differs from today’s digital landscape.
- Justice Samuel Alito – mentioned by Dershowitz as a potential future ally, though not a formal dissenting voice.
Official Statements & Responses
The Court’s order provided no commentary beyond the denial of certiorari, effectively preserving existing precedent. CNN’s brief described the “actual-malice standard” as a “pillar of modern First Amendment jurisprudence” and warned that overturning it would cause “lasting damage.” Dershowitz, in an email to NBC News, said the case highlighted a “nearly impossible” burden of proof and expressed confidence that the Court would eventually modify the standard. The dissent filed by Thomas and Gorsuch urged the Court to reconsider the doctrine, asserting that it “bears no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.”
Criticism & Opposition
The Society of Professional Journalists’ executive director, Caroline Hendrie, reiterated the organization’s opposition to any effort to weaken the Sullivan standard, calling it essential for press freedom. Legal scholars cited the original civil-rights context of *Sullivan* and warned that eroding the rule could revive historic tactics of silencing critical reporting through costly libel suits.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources differ on the authorship of the dissent: some attribute the entire opinion to Justice Thomas with Justice Gorsuch merely joining, while others present the dissent as a joint statement. Additionally, a few outlets suggest Justice Alito may share concerns about the standard, but no formal dissent or filing confirms his stance.
Verbatim Quotes
- “The ‘actual malice’ standard for public figures ‘bears ‘no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.'” — Justice Clarence Thomas, dissent
- “The ‘actual malice’ standard for public figures ‘bears ‘no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.'” — Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissent
- “The actual-malice standard is a pillar of modern First Amendment jurisprudence that safeguards the free speech necessary for self-determination in a democratic society while still ensuring effective recourse for public-official and public-figure plaintiffs,” — CNN legal team
- “whether we are able to prove malice by clear and convincing evidence — a nearly impossible burden. I believe that the Court will eventually change that standard.” — Alan Dershowitz
- “[The organization] strongly opposes efforts to overturn or weaken the actual malice standard established in New York Times Co.” — Caroline Hendrie, Society of Professional Journalists
- “If anything, the evidence shows that they believed in the truth of their reporting, and that they formed their opinions independently. Without evidence of actual malice Dershowitz’s defamation claim cannot go forward,” — Judge Britt Grant, 11th Circuit
What’s Next
The dissent signals that at least two justices remain open to revisiting *Sullivan* in future cases. Until a majority of five justices joins the effort, the “actual malice” standard will continue to govern defamation actions involving public figures. Legal analysts anticipate that subsequent petitions—potentially involving other high-profile plaintiffs—may test the Court’s willingness to reexamine the doctrine.
