Supreme Court declines Alan Dershowitz defamation case, with Justice Thomas calling to revisit press freedom precedent

Feb 9, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 29, 2026 declined to hear Alan Dershowitz's $300 million defamation lawsuit against CNN over its 2020 coverage of his defense of President Trump during the 2020 impeachment proceedings. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, issued a statement calling for the Court to reconsider the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan precedent, which established the "actual malice" standard requiring public figures to prove media knew statements were false or showed reckless disregard for truth. Thomas argued this standard lacks constitutional basis and contradicts founding-era protections for public figures. Legal scholars like Paul Collins note the denial suggests most justices oppose revisiting Sullivan, which would otherwise make defamation suits far easier for public figures to win.

Dershowitz case denial

▪The Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari to Alan Dershowitz on June 29, 2026.
▪Alan Dershowitz sued CNN in 2020 for allegedly misrepresenting comments Alan Dershowitz made defending President Donald Trump during Donald Trump's 2020 impeachment hearing.

Sullivan actual malice standard

▪The Supreme Court's 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan established the "actual malice" standard for defamation cases.
▪The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan ruling protects the press from being sued for defamation when publishing false information about public officials unless the press is aware the statements are false or has reckless disregard for the truth.
▪L.B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, sued the New York Times for defamation and a state court initially agreed with L.B. Sullivan.
▪The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case stemmed from a New York Times advertisement supporting Martin Luther King Jr. and criticizing Montgomery, Alabama police that included factual inaccuracies about the police.

Thomas dissent on precedent

▪Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the "actual malice" standard for public figures bears no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.
▪Justice Clarence Thomas called for the Supreme Court to revisit the 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan ruling on June 29, 2026.
▪Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the founding generation believed that public figures had stronger claims for damages when they were defamed.
▪Justice Clarence Thomas discussed revisiting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in a 2019 ruling.

Gorsuch joins Thomas

▪Paul Collins stated that Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the dissent indicates that Justice Neil Gorsuch is on board to revisit New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
▪Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Justice Clarence Thomas in the dissent calling to revisit New York Times Co. v. Sullivan on June 29, 2026.

Future defamation law impact

▪Paul Collins stated that the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari on June 29, 2026 suggests that a majority of the Supreme Court is not interested in taking another look at New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
▪Paul Collins stated that Justice Clarence Thomas appears to lack broader Supreme Court support for revisiting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
▪Paul Collins, professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, stated that overturning New York Times Co. v. Sullivan would make it much easier for public figures to succeed in defamation cases.
▪Paul Collins stated that overturning New York Times Co. v. Sullivan would mean public figures would no longer have to show that media acted with actual malice.

Dershowitz CNN lawsuit origins

▪Alan Dershowitz's lawsuit alleges that CNN commentators focused on the last sentence of Alan Dershowitz's comments, making it seem like Alan Dershowitz was stating that the president could do anything to get reelected with no legal consequences.
▪Alan Dershowitz's lawsuit against CNN stemmed from comments Alan Dershowitz made in January 2020 responding to a question from Senator Ted Cruz about whether Donald Trump's dealings with Ukraine represented a quid pro quo arrangement.
▪Alan Dershowitz stated in January 2020 that Donald Trump's actions regarding Ukraine did not constitute an impeachable offense because Donald Trump believed the actions would help Donald Trump get elected in the public interest.

Perspective of Press freedom advocates and legal scholars (represented by Paul Collins)

▪Paul Collins states that overturning New York Times Co. v. Sullivan would make it much easier for public figures to succeed in defamation cases against media organizations.