Project Daylight
LIVE Priya Venkatesh published: Supreme Court Rulings on Federal Reserve and Independent Agency Independence: Implications… · 4057 entries on record · 1036 items on the plan · day 67
The Record · Media & Information · 5FC62052
concern / Media & Information

Thomas and Gorsuch target New York Times v. Sullivan in Dershowitz dissent

Routed by Priya Shah · The article targets a landmark ruling that Trump associates with protecting 'fake news,' directly implicating press freedom and state capture of media, which aligns with Maya Choudhury's lens of defending public broadcasting and journalists from state interference. Section reviewed by Elena Park · "The draft incorrectly attributes the Dershowitz dissent to a 'coordinated Project 2025 legal agenda' without support from the Fox News source or any cited evidence. This is a speculative claim that undermines groundedness. Suggest removing or citing a source." Reviewed by Teresa Calderón · "Severity 'serious' is not in our approved scale (critical, concern). 'Serious' is close to 'concern' but inflates the language slightly — changed to 'concern'. Summary and reframe are grounded and well-voiced; clean title. Small editorial tightening applied."

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch dissented from the Supreme Court's denial of Alan Dershowitz's defamation appeal, with Thomas reiterating his call to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 ruling protecting press criticism of public officials, while Trump separately prepares to revive a $475 million CNN defamation suit.

On June 29, 2026, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented when the Supreme Court declined to hear Alan Dershowitz's defamation appeal, with Thomas repeating his long-standing demand to overrule New York Times v. Sullivan — the decision that requires public officials to prove actual malice to win libel suits. President Trump, who called the ruling a shield for 'fake news,' is separately expected to ask the justices to revive his $475 million defamation lawsuit against CNN. These moves aim to dismantle First Amendment protections that have enabled journalists to report critically on government misconduct. The practical effect would be to chill coverage of corruption, enabling officials to silence accountability reporting through costly litigation.

The humanitarian alternative

Rather than lowering libel standards, policymakers should strengthen press freedoms by enacting a federal shield law at the Congressional level that protects journalists from retaliatory discovery. This would combat actual harassment without weakening the actual-malus standard that has made possible landmark investigations from Watergate to the Pentagon Papers. States can also adopt or strengthen anti-SLAPP laws to quickly dismiss meritless defamation claims against media defendants, preserving the public's right to know without judicial favoritism.

Falsifiable predictions

What this entry claims will happen, and what data would prove it wrong. The Reckoner revisits these against current reality.

  1. The Supreme Court will grant certiorari in a defamation case involving a public figure within the next term to formally reconsider the actual-malus standard.
    Horizon: 12 months Falsified by: The Court denies cert in multiple such cases or affirms the standard in a merits ruling.
  2. Trump's pending $475 million CNN suit will be rejected without comment by the Supreme Court before the 2028 election.
    Horizon: 18 months Falsified by: The Court grants review or issues a ruling that partially revives the suit.

Grounded in

Original source — excerpted

news Thomas, Gorsuch target landmark ruling Trump says protects the 'fake news'

"NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles! Two of the Supreme Court's conservative justices criticized the majority’s decision not to take up attorney Alan..."

Policy levers federal-shield-lawanti-slapp-protectionactual-malus-preservationsupreme-court-rule-changemedia-legal-defense-funding