The Supreme Court on Monday declined to revive a $300 million defamation lawsuit filed by Alan Dershowitz against CNN. The suit stemmed from the network's coverage of remarks the attorney made while defending President Donald Trump during his 2020 impeachment trial.
In a brief, unexplained order, the majority of justices refused to take up the case. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented, advocating for a reconsideration of the legal standards for public figures pursuing defamation claims.
Dershowitz, a retired Harvard Law School professor and legal commentator, argued that CNN distorted his meaning by airing only a portion of his comments. He stated that the edited segment made him appear to have "lost his mind."
During the impeachment proceedings, Dershowitz was part of Trump's defense team. He had stated, in response to a question, that "the only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were somehow illegal," adding that providing arms to Ukraine was not illegal. Dershowitz alleged that CNN selectively aired a subsequent comment: "Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest and, mostly, they are right, your election is in the public interest, and 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."
According to Dershowitz, this edit created the impression that he was arguing a president could evade impeachment for illegal acts by claiming they were in the public interest to secure reelection. He described this interpretation as "preposterous and foolish on its face."
CNN countered that it aired Dershowitz's full remarks during live coverage and invited him back for further discussion on two occasions. The network also asserted that multiple outlets had interpreted his remarks similarly, and Dershowitz failed to demonstrate that CNN intended to mischaracterize his statements.
In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Dershowitz urged a review of the standard set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. This landmark First Amendment case established that public figures must prove an outlet knowingly published falsehoods or acted with reckless disregard for the truth to win libel lawsuits.
Lower courts had previously dismissed Dershowitz's lawsuit, ruling that he had not shown CNN acted with "actual malice" in its reporting, thus failing to meet the standard required by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.