Dershowitz v. Cable News Network, Inc.

1 Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026)
T
HOMAS, 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.
J
USTICE 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)
(T
HOMAS, 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–
381 (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)
(T
HOMAS, 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.
T
HOMAS, J., dissenting
standard for public figures. See, e.g., Berisha, 594 U. S., at
___ (G
ORSUCH, 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.