The Supreme Court is set to conference on Dershowitz's $300M CNN defamation petition, which asks the justices to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan's actual malice standard.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider for the first time in private conference whether to grant certiorari in Alan Dershowitz's $300 million defamation suit against CNN, a case in which Dershowitz and his counsel are expressly asking the justices to overturn or substantially curtail the actual malice standard established in *New York Times v. Sullivan* in 1964 [1]. The conference consideration, expected around the May 21 session, places the foundational press-freedom precedent under direct judicial scrutiny for the first time in decades [1].
The underlying dispute stems from CNN's coverage of Dershowitz's role as defense counsel during the first Senate impeachment trial of President Trump in 2020 [2]. Dershowitz contends that CNN selectively edited his televised remarks in a way that distorted his constitutional argument, damaging his reputation. ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow is among the advocates pressing the petition [2]. CNN, in its brief opposing certiorari, argued that Dershowitz's claims fail under any evidentiary standard and characterized his factual framing as disconnected from the record [2]. The case has traveled through the federal courts, with the Eleventh Circuit rejecting Dershowitz's claims before the petition reached the high court.
The certiorari petition carries structural significance beyond the parties. *New York Times v. Sullivan* requires public figures to prove that a defendant acted with "actual malice," meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth, before recovering defamation damages. Dershowitz and the ACLJ are asking the Court to abandon or meaningfully limit that standard [2]. Several justices, including Justice Clarence Thomas, have previously written separately to question whether *Sullivan* was correctly decided, lending the petition unusual visibility at conference [1]. A grant would position the case as the most consequential First Amendment defamation proceeding in sixty years.
Whether the Court grants review remains uncertain. Four votes are required to grant certiorari, and CNN's opposition brief argues the petition presents no circuit split and no clean vehicle for reconsidering *Sullivan* [2]. If the Court denies the petition, the Eleventh Circuit ruling stands and the litigation ends. If the Court grants, briefing would proceed on the merits through the fall term, with argument potentially scheduled in early 2027. Media organizations and First Amendment advocates are expected to file amicus briefs at the merits stage should review be granted [1].