Dershowitz Defamation Defeat
Supreme Court Refuses to Revive Alan Dershowitz's $300 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
Anonymous
The Supreme Court has refused to revive Alan Dershowitz's $300 million defamation lawsuit against CNN, ending a six-year legal battle over the network's coverage of his remarks during Donald Trump's first impeachment trial WCVB. The court issued a brief order on June 29, 2026, declining to hear the case — a decisive loss for the 87-year-old retired Harvard Law professor WMUR.
Dershowitz had argued that CNN deliberately edited his January 2020 Senate floor remarks to make it appear he had "lost his mind." The lawsuit sought $300 million in damages and asked the court to reconsider a landmark 62-year-old press freedom ruling KMBC.
How CNN's Impeachment Coverage Sparked the Lawsuit
The dispute began on January 29, 2020. Dershowitz argued before the U.S. Senate that a president who believes his re-election serves the "public interest" cannot be convicted of a crime for a quid pro quo. CNN anchors Wolf Blitzer and Chris Cuomo — along with several commentators — interpreted this as Dershowitz saying a president could do anything, even illegal acts, to stay in power KCCI.
Dershowitz appeared on CNN twice in the following days to clarify his position. Still, he filed suit in September 2020, claiming the network ran a "deliberate scheme to defraud" viewers. CNN fired back that many other outlets, including MSNBC, read the remarks the same way — so the coverage could not be called malicious KOAT.
Courts Ruled Against Dershowitz at Every Step
A Florida federal court dismissed the case in May 2023. The judge ruled that Dershowitz failed to prove "actual malice" — a legal standard from the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. That standard requires public figures to show a news outlet knew its reporting was false, or simply did not care whether it was WISN.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling on August 29, 2025. The appeals court noted that CNN had given Dershowitz airtime to explain himself — which hurt his claim that the network acted with deliberate bad intent. The Supreme Court then declined his February 2026 petition without comment WLKY.
Two Justices Wanted to Scrap a 60-Year Press Freedom Rule
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch went on record opposing the Sullivan precedent. Thomas wrote that the "actual malice" standard has "no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution." He argued the current rule makes it nearly impossible for public figures to protect their reputations WAPT.
But two dissenting voices were not enough. Legal analysts say the refusal to hear the case signals that other conservative justices — including Alito and Kavanaugh — are not ready to tear down 60 years of First Amendment law. The Sullivan standard remains intact KSBW.
What the Ruling Means for Media and Political Coverage
The decision keeps the bar very high for defamation lawsuits against news outlets. Networks can still provide aggressive, opinion-heavy analysis of public figures — even if that analysis turns out to be wrong — as long as they do not knowingly broadcast lies WMTW.
For Dershowitz, the outcome was a total defeat. He had argued that media outlets had become "an impregnable fortress that protects media irresponsibility." The Supreme Court's silence on that argument suggests the majority disagrees — or is waiting for a stronger test case to revisit the issue KOCO.
Sentiment
NeutralNEGATIVENEUTRALPOSITIVE
Publishers
13
Articles
13
Reach
13
Topics
A
AnonymousAuthor
