11
Supreme Court Shuts Down Dershowitz’s $300M CNN Lawsuit Revival Bid
The Supreme Court Says No to Alan Dershowitz’s Big Lawsuit Against CNN
What Happened? (The Simple Version)
Imagine you’re a famous person, and a news channel airs something that makes you look really bad. You feel like they twisted your words and lied about what you said. So you take them to court and ask for $300 million. That’s basically what happened here — and the highest court in the United States just said, "No, we’re not going to hear your case."
Who Are the People Involved?
- Alan Dershowitz — An 87-year-old lawyer and former Harvard University law professor. He’s a well-known constitutional law expert who helped defend former President Donald Trump during one of his impeachment trials.
- CNN — A major American news network that covered Dershowitz’s remarks during the impeachment.
- The US Supreme Court — The highest court in the country, which has the final say on big legal questions.
What Did Dershowitz Say That Caused All This?
Here’s where it gets interesting. During one of President Trump’s first-term impeachment trials, Senator Ted Cruz asked Dershowitz a question: Could a president be impeached for trading political favors for military aid to another country?
Dershowitz gave a two-part answer:
-
First part: "The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were somehow illegal." (A "quid pro quo" is just a fancy way of saying "you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours" — a favor traded for another favor.)
- Second part: "Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest… 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."
Why Did Dershowitz Sue CNN?
Dershowitz claimed that CNN only aired the second part of his answer and left out the first part. By doing so, he argued, CNN made it look like he was saying:
"A president can do literally anything illegal, and as long as he believes getting re-elected is good for the country, he can’t be impeached."
Dershowitz said this made him look like he had "lost his mind" and falsely painted him as a crazy legal scholar. He called the idea "preposterous and foolish on its face" and accused CNN of running "a deliberate scheme to defraud its own audience."
So in 2020, he filed a $300 million defamation lawsuit against CNN.
What’s defamation? It’s when someone publishes or broadcasts a false statement about you that damages your reputation. "Slander" is spoken defamation, and "libel" is written defamation.
What Did the Lower Court Decide?
A lower court threw out Dershowitz’s lawsuit. Here’s why:
- The court found that Dershowitz did not prove CNN acted with "actual malice."
- This means he couldn’t show that CNN knowingly published something false or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.
This standard comes from a famous 1964 Supreme Court case called New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which made it much harder for public figures (like politicians, celebrities, and famous lawyers) to win defamation lawsuits.
Why does this rule exist? The idea is to protect free speech. If public figures could easily sue the news, journalists might be afraid to report on important topics. The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects freedom of speech and press, and this rule helps keep that protection strong.
What Did the Supreme Court Do?
Dershowitz appealed to the Supreme Court and asked them to reconsider the New York Times v. Sullivan rule. He argued that the case had:
"Morphed into an impregnable fortress that protects media irresponsibility while denying public figures any remedy for egregious misrepresentations."
In plain English, he felt the rule had become too powerful — like an unbreakable shield that lets news outlets get away with really harmful mistakes, while giving famous people no way to fight back.
CNN’s lawyers pushed back hard, calling the 1964 ruling:
- A "cornerstone of modern constitutional law"
- A "pillar" of First Amendment free speech rights
- Something that’s necessary for democracy while still giving public figures some legal options
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a brief, unexplained order declining to hear the case. This means:
- The lower court’s decision stands.
- The "actual malice" standard from New York Times v. Sullivan remains the law of the land.
- Dershowitz’s lawsuit is officially dead.
Not Everyone Agreed
Two conservative Supreme Court justices — Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — dissented, meaning they disagreed with the majority. They called on the Supreme Court to reconsider the New York Times v. Sullivan standards, suggesting they might be open to changing the rules around defamation for public figures in the future.
Summary
| What | Details |
|---|---|
| Who sued? | Alan Dershowitz, famous lawyer and former Harvard professor |
| Who was sued? | CNN, the news network |
| How much? | $300 million |
| Why? | Dershowitz claimed CNN edited his comments to make him look like he had "lost his mind" |
| Lower court ruling | Threw out the case — Dershowitz didn’t prove "actual malice" |
| Supreme Court ruling | Declined to hear the case, leaving the 1964 standard in place |
| Dissent | Justices Gorsuch and Thomas wanted to reconsider the rules |
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1: What is the "actual malice" standard?
It’s a legal rule from 1964 that says public figures who sue for defamation must prove the news outlet either knew the statement was false or showed reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. It’s a very high bar to clear, and it exists to protect free speech and a free press.
Q2: Did CNN actually lie about what Dershowitz said?
The courts never reached a final conclusion on whether CNN’s editing was misleading. The lower court found that even if it was, Dershowitz didn’t prove CNN intentionally lied or recklessly didn’t care about the truth — which is what the law requires.
Q3: Could the Supreme Court ever change the New York Times v. Sullivan rule?
It’s possible. Justices Gorsuch and Thomas have already signaled they’re open to reconsidering it. However, for now, the rule remains firmly in place and is considered a foundational part of American constitutional law.
Q4: What does this mean for everyday people who feel misquoted by the news?
For regular people (not public figures), defamation cases are actually easier to bring because the "actual malice" standard doesn’t apply. You’d generally just need to show the outlet was negligent — meaning they didn’t exercise reasonable care in getting the facts right.
Q5: What’s an "impregnable fortress" in legal terms?
Dershowitz used this phrase to describe how he sees the New York Times v. Sullivan rule — as a legal defense so strong that it’s nearly impossible for public figures to break through, even when they believe the media has seriously misrepresented them.
