We've blogged several times about Alan Dershowitz's lawsuit against CNN. Judge Singhal granted summary judgment to CNN and the 11th Circuit affirmed. But in their opinions, both Judge Singhal and Judge Lagoa questioned the continuing vitality of the NY Times v. Sullivan standard. But it looks like the standard will live to see another day. Monday, the Supreme Court denied Dershowitz’s cert petition. But that denial came with a dissent from Justice Thomas, which was joined by Justice Gorsuch. Citing Judge Lagoa, among others, Justice Thomas wrote that "The actual malice' standard for public figures bears no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.” You can read the one-page dissent here.
That sound you heard Monday was the sound of media outlets collectively exhaling!
Yes, because even if SCOTUS took up the case and even if SCOTUS overruled NY Times v. Sullivan, the result would have had no bearing on Dershowitz's case. The reason is that the actual-malice standard is just as much baked into Florida law as it is by SCOTUS.
ReplyDelete