Thomas calls for reconsidering actual malice for public figures
Clarence ThomasSupreme Court justice dissenting from denial of review
Thomas calls for reconsidering the actual-malice standard for public figures and says he would have granted review in Dershowitz v. CNN.
“I and others have thus called for reconsideration of the actual-malice ... standard for public figures.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Should the Supreme Court keep New York Times v. Sullivan's rule and its public-figure extensions?
New York Times v. Sullivan requires public officials suing over official conduct to prove knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. Later decisions extend that requirement to public figures. Thomas and Gorsuch urge reconsideration, particularly of those extensions. Defenders argue that weakening the rule would deter legitimate criticism without solving misinformation.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
The Court denies review. Thomas, joined by Gorsuch, calls for reconsidering the actual-malice rule for public figures.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Thomas describes how the actual-malice requirement defeated Dershowitz's defamation suit and records his request to overrule Sullivan and related precedents.
After the quotation
The Court denies the petition. Thomas says he would have granted review to reconsider the public-figure standard.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Thomas calls for reconsidering the protection examined in this case, arguing that its public-figure standard lacks a constitutional basis. His dissent criticizes retaining that rule.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseGorsuch says actual malice has become a subsidy for falsehoods
“What started in 1964 with a decision to tolerate the occasional falsehood to ensure robust reporting by a comparative handful of print and broadcast outlets has evolved into an ironclad subsidy for the publication of falsehoods by means and on a scale previously unimaginable.”Read statement
Supreme Court justifies constitutional protection for critics of public officials
Supreme Court of the United States
“It would give public servants an unjustified preference over the public they serve, if critics of official conduct did not have a fair equivalent of the immunity granted to the officials themselves. We conclude that such a privilege is required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Thomas calls for reconsidering actual malice for public figures
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6072-thomas-calls-for-reconsidering-the-actual-malice-standard
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Thomas calls for reconsidering actual malice for public figures". First published: 2026-10-19. Last updated: 2026-10-19. https://disputeindex.com/events/6072-thomas-calls-for-reconsidering-the-actual-malice-standard