Dershowitz v. Cable News Network, Inc.

Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 1 THOMAS, J., dissenting SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ v. CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 25–770. Decided June 29, 2026 The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

Alan Dershowitz sued respondent, a major news network, alleging that it defamed him. Because Dershowitz is a “public person,” our precedents required him to prove not only the elements of common-law defamation, but also that the network acted with “actual malice.” See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 327–328, 342 (1974). Predicta- bly, Dershowitz did not prevail under that exacting stand- ard, which this Court created in New York Times Co. v. Sul- livan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964). Dershowitz now asks this Court to overrule Sullivan and related precedents.

The “actual malice” standard for public figures “bears ‘no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitu- tion.’ ” Berisha v. Lawson, 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 2) (quoting Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc., 991 F. 3d 231, 251 (CADC 2021) (Silberman, J., dissenting); em- phasis deleted); see also Gertz, 418 U. S., at 370–371, 380– (White, J., dissenting); 153 F. 4th 1189, 1206 (CA11 2025) (case below) (Lagoa, J., concurring). Instead, the founding generation believed that, if anything, public fig- ures had stronger claims for damages when they were de- famed. See McKee v. Cosby, 586 U. S. 1172, 1177 (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring in denial of certiorari). I and oth- ers have thus called for reconsideration of the actual-malice 2 DERSHOWITZ v. CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC. THOMAS, J., dissenting standard for public figures. See, e.g., Berisha, 594 U. S., at ___ (GORSUCH, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 8); Tah, 991 F. 3d, at 251 (opinion of Silberman, J.); Gertz, 418 U. S., at 370–371 (opinion of White, J.). I would have granted certiorari to do so in this case.