Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch believe the 1964 decision of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan should be revisited.
The landmark decision established the “actual malice” standard, which has made it difficult for defamation cases to be brought against public figures and media companies. This means a defendant must be able to prove that a defamatory statement was made with reckless disregard of the truth, or with actual knowledge of the statement’s false nature.
Thomas made the suggestion after Alan Dershowitz attempted to renew his case against CNN, where he went after the network’s coverage of President Donald Trump’s first impeachment. In 2020, he sued the outlet over allegations that it twisted his comments made on the Senate floor as he defended the president.
🚨 The Supreme Court declined to consider overruling NYT v. Sullivan, denying review in Alan Dershowitz’s defamation suit against CNN. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissented, arguing the Court should reconsider the “actual malice” standard for public figures. pic.twitter.com/dNgQa4nJCW
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) June 29, 2026
While the Supreme Court ultimately rejected the case, the justices said in their dissent that they would have heard the case in the interest of making it easier to bring claims of defamation against public figures.
“Instead, the founding generation believed that, if anything, public figures had stronger claims for damages when they were defamed,” Thomas said.
A lower court found that Dershowitz failed to prove “actual malice” on the part of CNN, resulting in them siding with the outlet.
“CNN has offered unrefuted evidence that its commentators believed in the truth of their statements about Dershowitz; all of the journalists testified that they believed their statements were fair and accurate. And Dershowitz did not counter that evidence,” wrote an appeals court last year.
Thomas is among those who consider the standard to be far too high, which puts an unfair burden on plaintiffs.
“I and others have thus called for reconsideration of the actual-malice standard for public figures,” he said Monday.
Indeed, a statement from 2019 echoes the same sentiments.
“We did not begin meddling in this area until 1964, nearly 175 years after the First Amendment was ratified. The States are perfectly capable of striking an acceptable balance between encouraging robust public discourse and providing a meaningful remedy for reputational harm,” he wrote after SCOTUS refused to hear a case from one of Bill Cosby’s accusers.
X users reacted:
That’s unfortunate…big media needs to held accountable
— ItsPaybackTime (@magaFTWdaily) June 29, 2026
I’m kind of surprised Kavanaugh didn’t join with Thomas and Gorsuch.
— KingsAdvisors (@kingsadvisors_) June 29, 2026
Could you legislate a different definition of defamation and just call it lying? Take out the requirement of malice and proving damages, but rather just set a fixed amount of an award plus attorney fees?
In Europe many defamation laws are structured this way.
— Chris ⛵ (@HeliJoc) June 29, 2026
Seriously though why are public figures any different? Isn’t that violating their own free speech too. And what purpose does it really serve?
— Chris (@chriswithans) June 29, 2026
Writers and editors can be contacted at [email protected] with feedback, tips, or corrections.
Sierra Marlee is a millennial whose hunger for the truth in a world of fake news has led her to write. Marlee also contributes to BizPac Review.
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.