Was the FBI’s search of a Washington Post reporter’s home legal?
Trump was not particularly friendly to the press during his first term, but in his second term he has shown open hostility toward certain reporters.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 29 declined to reconsider a landmark press freedom ruling that limited when public figures can be sued for defamation or defamation.
Alan Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School who claims he was defamed by CNN while defending President Donald Trump from impeachment, unsuccessfully asked the court to consider overturning or modifying the 1964 ruling.
In New York Times v. Sullivan, the court held that a newspaper could not recover damages unless the journalist knew it was publishing false information about a public official or recklessly failed to verify the information.
Dershowitz argues that this standard “has evolved into near-absolute immunity even when media defendants materially misrepresent verifiable public statements.”
Two of the court’s six conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, said they would take up the case.
Dershowitz’s appeal stems from Trump’s 2020 Senate impeachment trial over whether he withheld military funds to pressure Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden.
Dershowitz claimed that statements made by CNN during the trial regarding the scope of impeachable crimes were “systematically distorted.”
In criticizing Mr. Dershowitz’s argument that an exchange of favors based on a president’s desire for re-election cannot be impeached, commentators ignored Mr. Dershowitz’s qualification that bribery and extortion remain impeachable crimes, his lawyers said.
“The result turns the meaning of Dershowitz on its head,” they told the Supreme Court.
One of the headlines on CNN’s website read, “Alan Dershowitz says presidential payoffs aimed at getting re-elected are not impeachable.”
Based in Atlanta 11th The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge’s ruling against CNN, saying, “The available evidence shows that the reporters had a sincere belief, even if false or exaggerated, in the truth of the accusations.”
“While no one disputes that Mr. Dershowitz is a public figure, he has not presented any evidence that CNN’s commentators or producers acted with actual malice,” Judge Britt Grant wrote for the court.
Dershowitz appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, saying the media had become “increased to disregard the truth” and that the internet was “drastically exacerbating the damage.”
CNN’s lawyers countered that the network aired Dershowitz’s full statement and gave him airtime to respond to his critics.
The media company also argued that New York Times v. Sullivan “remains the bedrock of six decades of First Amendment decisions that have prevented media censorship.”
“The Sullivan decision is a cornerstone of modern constitutional law, and this court could not reverse it without permanently damaging extensive precedent,” CNN’s lawyers said in a filing.
