Alan Dershowitz goes all in at SCOTUS, suggests landmark precedent 'should be discarded'
Source: Law & Crime
Jan 6th, 2026, 9:33 am
Alan Dershowitz vowed to take his thus far failed defamation case against CNN all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the landmark 1964 precedent set by New York Times v. Sullivan, a gambit that would change defamation law as we know it, and to the delight of Justice Clarence Thomas, if the court takes up the case and it succeeds.
Attorney Jay Sekulow, like Dershowitz, defended President Donald Trump at his first impeachment trial, which scrutinized Trump's Ukraine aid impoundment but ended in his acquittal. Now, more than five years later, Sekulow and the American Center for Law and Justice are defending the famed criminal defense attorney and Harvard Law School professor emeritus for what he said during the Trump trial.
The petition for a writ of certiorari has officially been in the cards since November, when Dershowitz sought an extension from Thomas to file. The justice, who handles cases from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, granted that extension. Dershowitz then filed the petition on Dec. 29, following through on his September remarks to Law&Crime.
In the petition, which follows the federal district court's dismissal of his case and the 11th Circuit's affirming of that dismissal, Dershowitz made clear that he believes SCOTUS should seize the opportunity to overturn Times v. Sullivan, which established the "actual malice" standard for public officials and public figures alleging defamation.
Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/alan-dershowitz-follows-through-on-vow-to-overturn-landmark-scotus-defamation-precedent-after-loss-to-cnn/
Full headline: Alan Dershowitz goes all in at SCOTUS, suggests landmark precedent 'should be discarded' because CNN 'falsely' painted him as scholar who 'lost his mind'
= new reply since forum marked as read
Seems to me SCOTUS already suffers from a poor jurisprudence history that the maga six have brought on the court.
I think they'd at least try to keep their low rep from getting even lower over having blown past historical legal precedents.
Their immunity misruling was egregious enough. But to overturn the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan would seriously weaken free speech protections. Do they really want to work to make it much easier for public officials to win libel suits against journalists and critics by removing the high "actual malice" standard (requiring proof of knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth), malice being pretty much the state of politics and journalism these days? Do they want to heap more case overload on the courts as lawsuits become weapons for journalism suppression?
Could they possibly want less journalism that uncovers an opaque government when the country right now needs even more?
I daresay it's Dershowitz's poor rep vs SCOTUS's poor rep.
