Loading...
Former Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz has lost his lawsuit against CNN over allegations of defamation. Dershowitz claimed that CNN had misrepresented his remarks during the first impeachment trial of former US President Donald Trump. He argued that CNN had mischaracterized his remarks by suggesting that a president could do anything, including illegal acts, as long as they believed it was in the public interest.
US District Judge Raag Singhal, an appointee of Trump, ruled in favor of CNN, stating that Dershowitz had failed to provide sufficient evidence that CNN had met the “actual malice” standard required for liability under the 1964 US Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Despite dismissing the case, Judge Singhal criticized the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan ruling and suggested that the US Supreme Court should not be in the business of policy writing.
While actual malice was not established, Judge Singhal commented that the facts showed “foolishness, apathy, and an inability to string together a series of common legal principles” on CNN’s part. Dershowitz had complained that CNN had taken out a crucial sentence in edited clips that would have clarified his remarks.
Dershowitz argued that a president could not be impeached simply for taking actions based on a desire to be reelected as long as the president believes it is in the public interest. However, Dershowitz also said that a president could be impeached if they have done something illegal, regardless of their motive.
Get noticed by top law firms and sign up for LawCrossing now.
The dispute centered on Dershowitz’s comments during the January 2020 impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump. Dershowitz had accused Trump of withholding military funds for Ukraine to force the country’s president to investigate now-President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
Dershowitz claimed that a shortened clip and commentary by CNN news commentators had falsely suggested that he believed a president could do anything, including illegal acts, as long as they thought it was in the public interest. Dershowitz argued that CNN had taken his comments out of context and had mischaracterized his position.
Judge Singhal ruled that there was no proof that CNN commentators or producers entertained severe doubts about the integrity of the network’s reports. Singhal noted that CNN had produced undisputed evidence that each challenged publication had been individually edited and produced. There was no scheme to falsely paint Dershowitz as a constitutional scholar who had lost his mind.
According to Judge Singhal, there was no requirement under the First Amendment for a reporter to talk about everything Dershowitz had ever said about impeachment or all the various ways one could be impeached. The judge dismissed the case, ruling that Dershowitz had failed to provide sufficient evidence that CNN had met the “actual malice” standard required for liability under the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision.
Dershowitz has not yet commented on the ruling. It remains to be seen whether he will appeal the decision. Despite the ruling, the case highlights the ongoing tension between media outlets and public figures over the accuracy and fairness of news reporting. While the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, public figures often have to prove actual malice to win defamation lawsuits. This high legal standard requires proof that a news outlet knowingly published false or misleading information.
