Clarence Thomas Wants Supreme Court to Revisit 62-Year-Old Opinion
Summary
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wants the court to reconsider a 1964 decision that protects the press from many defamation lawsuits by public figures. The court recently decided not to review a related defamation case involving lawyer Alan Dershowitz and CNN, but Justice Thomas argues the old ruling should be changed.Key Facts
- Justice Thomas called for revisiting the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
- That case set the "actual malice" standard, meaning public figures must prove that false statements were made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth to win defamation suits.
- Alan Dershowitz sued CNN in 2020 over alleged false reporting about his comments defending President Donald Trump’s impeachment.
- The Supreme Court declined to hear Dershowitz’s case, but Thomas dissented, saying the court should review it.
- Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas in the dissent, showing some support for reconsidering the ruling.
- Thomas argues the "actual malice" rule is not based on the Constitution’s text or history and that public figures should have stronger protections against defamation.
- Overturning the 1964 ruling would make it easier for public figures to win defamation lawsuits.
- Most of the current court justices appear not interested in revisiting the case at this time.
Read the Full Article
This is a fact-based summary from The Actual News. Click below to read the complete story directly from the original source.