Supreme Court Won't Revive Dershowitz's $300 Million CNN Defamation Suit; Thomas and Gorsuch Renew Attack on the Sullivan Standard

Supreme Court Won't Revive Dershowitz's CNN Defamation Suit; Thomas and Gorsuch Renew Attack on the Sullivan Standard

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 29, 2026 declined to hear Alan Dershowitz's defamation lawsuit against CNN, leaving in place a 2025 Eleventh Circuit ruling against him. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch dissented from the denial, renewing their call to reconsider New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the decision that set the constitutional actual-malice bar for public-official defamation claims, later extended to public figures.

Information last verified on July 1, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Status: The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Dershowitz v. Cable News Network, Inc. (No. 25-770) on June 29, 2026. The denial ends this case. It does not change the actual-malice standard, which remains binding law; the Thomas and Gorsuch writing was a dissent from the denial, not a ruling.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses a federal certiorari denial and the constitutional standard for public-figure defamation, which applies nationwide. State law governs the elements of a defamation claim; see defamation laws by state. It does not provide advice on any specific dispute.

What Happened

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Dershowitz v. Cable News Network, Inc., No. 25-770. The denial leaves in place the Eleventh Circuit's 2025 ruling against Dershowitz, cited in the dissent as 153 F. 4th 1189 (CA11 2025). Alan Dershowitz sued CNN, alleging that the network defamed him.

Because Dershowitz is a public figure, he had to prove actual malice, the constitutional requirement that a public-figure plaintiff prove the defendant published a false statement knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false. As Justice Thomas's dissent put it, Dershowitz did not prevail under that exacting standard.

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissented from the denial of certiorari. Thomas has argued since 2019 that the actual-malice standard has, in his words, no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution, and he repeated his view that the Court should reconsider it. Gorsuch has separately pointed to what he has called momentous changes in the nation's media landscape as a reason to revisit whether Sullivan's protections remain correctly calibrated. No other member of the Court joined the dissent, and the Court did not agree to hear the case or to reexamine Sullivan.

What the Law Actually Says

The constitutional standard at the center of this case comes from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). There, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment bars a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood about official conduct unless the official proves the statement was made with actual malice, meaning with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false. Later cases extended the actual-malice requirement to public figures, a category that includes people like Dershowitz who have thrust themselves into public controversies.

Actual malice is a demanding standard, and it is why many public-figure defamation suits fail before trial. It is not about ill will in the ordinary sense; it is about the defendant's awareness of probable falsity. A plaintiff who cannot point to evidence that the publisher knew the statement was false, or seriously doubted its truth, generally cannot survive summary judgment. That is the framework the site explains in its guide to public-figure defamation and in state-specific resources such as Florida defamation laws. A denial of certiorari leaves that framework untouched. The Supreme Court declines to hear the large majority of petitions filed each term, and a denial carries no precedential weight and expresses no view on whether the lower court was right.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The headline development is procedural, but its significance is doctrinal. For several years, a small number of justices have signaled interest in revisiting Sullivan, and each denial that draws a Thomas or Gorsuch dissent becomes a marker in that longer campaign. What the Dershowitz denial shows is the same thing recent denials have shown: the votes to reexamine the actual-malice standard are not there. Reconsidering a constitutional precedent generally takes four votes to grant certiorari and five to change the law, and only two justices publicly signaled interest here.

For readers, the practical takeaway is that the rules for suing the media have not changed. A public figure who believes a broadcaster mischaracterized their words still must clear the actual-malice bar, and omissions or unflattering framing, without proof the publisher knew it was conveying a falsehood, generally will not be enough. This case sits alongside the site's coverage of other high-profile defamation fights, including the pending Roy Moore petition on the actual-malice standard and the broader record of defamation lawsuits against CNN. We do not predict whether the Court will eventually take up a Sullivan challenge; we note only that, as of this denial, it has again chosen not to.

How This Affects You

This section describes general implications, not advice about any specific situation. If you are a public figure or a public official, the actual-malice standard continues to govern your defamation claims: you generally must prove the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. If you are a private individual, a lower standard, often negligence, typically applies, and the specifics vary by state. Because a certiorari denial changes nothing about the governing law, anyone weighing a defamation claim should evaluate it under existing standards and consult a lawyer licensed in their jurisdiction, who can assess the elements, the applicable standard of fault, and any deadlines that apply.

What Happens Next

For Dershowitz v. CNN, nothing further happens in the courts; the denial ends the litigation. The broader question, whether the Supreme Court will ever revisit New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, remains open only in the sense that individual justices continue to raise it. A change would require the Court to grant certiorari in a future case and then command a majority to alter the standard, neither of which occurred here. Until that happens, the actual-malice standard remains the controlling rule for public-figure defamation nationwide, and lower courts will continue to apply it as they did in this case.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers a federal certiorari denial and the constitutional standard for public-figure defamation, and reflects sources verified on July 1, 2026. Laws change; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.

Sources

• Order List and Statement of Justice Thomas Respecting the Denial of Certiorari, Dershowitz v. Cable News Network, Inc., No. 25-770 (U.S. June 29, 2026) (primary source; supremecourt.gov)
• Docket, Dershowitz v. Cable News Network, Inc., No. 25-770 (procedural history; supremecourt.gov)
• New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), Cornell Legal Information Institute (underlying standard)

Related articles

• Defamation Laws by State: Libel and Slander
• Can a Public Figure Sue for Defamation?
• Florida Defamation Laws
• Roy Moore Asks the Supreme Court to Revive His Defamation Award
• How Many Times Has CNN Been Sued for Defamation?

---

Last updated: 2026-07-01. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-07-01.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the Supreme Court rule on the merits of Dershowitz's case?

No. The Court denied certiorari, meaning it declined to hear the appeal. A denial is not a ruling on the merits, sets no precedent, and leaves the lower court's decision in place. Here it leaves intact the Eleventh Circuit's 2025 ruling against Dershowitz.

Does this decision change the actual-malice standard?

No. The denial changes nothing about the law. The actual-malice standard from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan remains binding nationwide. The writing by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch was a dissent from the denial, not a majority ruling, and no other justice joined it.

What is the actual-malice standard?

Under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), a public official suing for defamation over official conduct must prove the defendant published a false statement knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false; later cases extended this actual-malice rule to public figures. It is a demanding standard that many public-figure suits fail to meet.

Why did Dershowitz lose in the lower courts?

Because Dershowitz is a public figure, he had to prove that CNN acted with actual malice, meaning it knew its coverage was false or recklessly disregarded the truth. As Justice Thomas's dissent from the denial put it, Dershowitz did not prevail under that exacting standard.

Which justices wanted to reconsider Sullivan?

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissented from the denial and urged the Court to reconsider New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Thomas has taken that position since 2019. No other justice joined, so the Court did not revisit the standard.

What does this mean if I want to sue for defamation?

The governing standards are unchanged. Public figures must generally prove actual malice, while private individuals usually face a lower fault standard that varies by state. This is general information, not legal advice; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about a specific claim.