Supreme Court won't revisit landmark press freedom ruling

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 29 declined to revisit a landmark decision about press freedom that limited when a public figure can sue for libel or defamation.

Alan Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School who alleges he was defamed by CNN when he was defending President Donald Trump from impeachment, unsuccessfully asked the court to consider overturning or modifying that 1964 decision.

In New York Times v. Sullivan, the court ruled that the newspaper couldn't be sued for damages unless the journalists knew they were printing false information about a public official or were reckless about not checking it.

Dershowitz argues that standard "has devolved into near-absolute immunity for media defendants, even when they profoundly misrepresent verifiable public statements."

Two of the court's six conservative justices − Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch − said they would have taken the case.

Dershowitz's appeal stemmed from the Senate's 2020 impeachment trial over whether Trump withheld military funds to pressure Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden.

Dershowitz argued CNN "systematically distorted" comments he made during the trial about the scope of impeachable offenses.

When criticizing Dershowitz's argument that a president can't be impeached for an exchange of favors that are motivated by his desire to get re-elected, the commentators left out Dershowitz's qualification that bribery and extortion are still impeachable offenses, his lawyers said.

"The result was to turn Dershowitz's meaning on its head," they told the Supreme Court.

One headline on CNN's website read: "Alan Dershowitz argues presidential quid pro quos aimed at reelection are not impeachable".

The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed a federal judge's ruling for CNN, saying the "available evidence points to the reporters' sincere − if mistaken or even overwrought − belief in the truth of their accusations."

"Dershowitz, who no one disputes is a public figure, has presented no evidence that CNN's commentators or producers acted with actual malice," Judge Britt Grant wrote for the court.

In appealing that decision to the Supreme Court, Dershowitz said the media has "grown disdainful of the truth" and the internet has "vastly exacerbated the harm."

CNN's lawyers countered that the network aired Dershowitz's full remarks and gave him air time to respond to the criticisms.

The media company also argued that New York Times v. Sullivan "remains the bedrock for six decades of First Amendment decisions that have prevented censorship" of the media.

"Because Sullivan is a cornerstone of modern constitutional law," CNN's lawyers wrote in a filing, "this Court could not remove the decision without causing lasting damage to a wide range of precedent."

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court won't revisit landmark press freedom ruling

Reporting by Maureen Groppe, USA TODAY / USA TODAY

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

Copyright Reuters or USA Today Network via Reuters Connect

This story was originally published June 29, 2026 at 9:41 AM.