SCOTUS Case To Overturn CNN Defamation Shield

Today the ACLJ has big news as our legal team has filed at the U.S. Supreme Court to demand that CNN be held accountable for spreading lies about our client during President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. For too long, the far-Left mainstream media has been able to lie, smear, and disparage people of faith and anyone who defends the Constitution with impunity.

As we just reported:

The ACLJ just filed a landmark case against CNN at the U.S. Supreme Court after the news agency defamed Harvard Law School professor emeritus and famed constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz during his Senate oral arguments against the impeachment of President Trump. We have filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court on behalf of Professor Dershowitz in his critical defamation case against CNN.

This case presents the Court with an opportunity to reconsider whether the actual malice standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan remains consistent with the First Amendment’s original meaning and whether it adequately protects individuals’ reputational interests while preserving robust public debate.

When mainstream media outlets can falsely vilify, smear, and attack public figures with impunity, there is a fundamental problem in the law. This case represents far more than one man’s fight to clear his name – it’s a battle for truth, constitutional fidelity, and the fundamental right to seek justice when wronged.

The ACLJ has now taken this fight all the way to the highest Court in the land, and the implications are enormous. At issue is whether the 60-year-old precedent set by New York Times v. Sullivan still makes sense in today’s media environment.

That’s why this case matters, way beyond just any one person or network. The media landscape of 2025 looks nothing like it did in 1964. Cable news runs 24/7. Social media amplifies narratives instantly. Commentary and reporting blur together. And reputations can be destroyed in hours.

And that 1964 decision created an extraordinarily high bar for public figures to prove defamation, requiring “actual malice” – knowledge that a statement was false or reckless disregard for the truth. In practice, that standard has become almost impenetrable. Even when false statements are repeated, misquoted, or strategically edited, there is often no legal remedy.

A judge in the defamation case has acknowledged that video evidence and transcripts prove that CNN misrepresented what Professor Dershowitz said during President Trump’s impeachment trial. And yet, the courts ruled that precedent tied their hands.

The First Amendment was never meant to be a license for libel, and it may finally be time for the Court to revisit how these protections are applied in the modern era.

My dad, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, joined us on the broadcast, and I brought up that this shield protecting irresponsible journalists and networks seems impenetrable, to which he offered his unique insight:

It really is impenetrable if you’re a public figure, and the media attacked you. President Trump has seen this. We basically tell clients, Sorry, there’s nothing really we can do.

Now what’s interesting here in Professor Dershowitz’s case, [by the way] it’s quite an honor for us to represent the leading constitutional law professor in American history. He was representing President Trump with me and Jordan on the Senate floor during the impeachment. And he made a statement of how the impeachment laws are supposed to work under the Constitution – what constitutes an impeachable offense – and CNN, after knowing exactly what he said, all their commentators made up a thing called the Dershowitz doctrine, which there is none, and said completely the opposite of what he said.

And they had the tape. The whole world saw it, and they continued this for a couple of days. They never retracted it. So, Professor Dershowitz filed a lawsuit. The judge said that if there was ever a case of defamation, this was it. But the only thing standing in the way between Professor Dershowitz and justice is a Supreme Court opinion called New York Times v. Sullivan, which was in 1964, which gave the media heightened protection.

But the media landscape was totally different then. Now everybody’s media. So what you’ve got is . . . this impenetrable wall. We’re challenging New York Times v. Sullivan. We also believe that the burdens that they place on plaintiffs are outrageous in these kinds of cases. And let me take it a step further, it’s not just how does this impact CNN? It impacts everybody. . . . These are calls we get, including from the President, all the way to Professor Dershowitz, to other people, the attacks that come, and nobody can take legal action. We’re hoping to change that.

After talking to my dad about our case on behalf of Professor Dershowitz, we turned our attention to Nigeria, where for years, Islamist terror groups like Boko Haram have targeted innocent Christians, burning churches and murdering believers with horrifying regularity for their faith. It’s a crisis that too often receives little attention. Thankfully, under the Trump Administration (after the ACLJ petitioned President Trump to intervene), these atrocities are being brought to light on a global scale.

Over the weekend, we saw decisive action: U.S. strikes against ISIS targets tied to mass killings of Christians in Nigeria. These were strategic, coordinated efforts designed to degrade terrorist infrastructure while supporting the Nigerian government’s ability to address the threat itself.

And the impact goes beyond military terms. Removing terrorist leaders, disrupting communication networks, and forcing these groups into hiding directly reduces their ability to carry out attacks. It also sends a clear message that religious persecution, especially mass violence and bloodshed, will not be tolerated or ignored.

While this won’t obliterate the problem completely, deterrence matters. It sends a clear message that will hopefully make these violent terrorists think twice before their next attack. And for vulnerable Christian communities, even incremental improvements in security can mean the difference between life and death.

Today’s Sekulow broadcast included more information regarding our case representing Professor Alan Dershowitz, as well as U.S. action in Nigeria to defend Christians. Also, ACLJ Senior Counsel for Global Affairs Mike Pompeo joined us on the show to discuss the meetings between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House, as they try to restart negotiations to end the war with Russia.

Watch the full broadcast below: