Gorsuch says actual malice has become a subsidy for falsehoods
Neil GorsuchSupreme Court justice dissenting from denial of review
Gorsuch argues that the doctrine now subsidizes falsehoods under modern publishing incentives.
“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.”
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
Two separately authored dissents argue for reconsidering actual malice. Denial of review did not change the governing rule.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
His dissent describes changes in the economics of journalism and the ease of publishing online.
After the quotation
He also questions expanded public-figure categories and ends by acknowledging that he has no settled answers to all the issues.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
His sustained criticism targets the effects of retaining the doctrine. His uncertainty about a replacement does not turn that criticism into approval.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseThomas calls for reconsidering actual malice for public figures
“I and others have thus called for reconsideration of the actual-malice ... standard for public figures.”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
- Gorsuch says actual malice has become a subsidy for falsehoods
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6073-gorsuch-argues-that-the-doctrine-now-subsidizes-falsehoods
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Gorsuch says actual malice has become a subsidy for falsehoods". First published: 2026-10-19. Last updated: 2026-10-19. https://disputeindex.com/events/6073-gorsuch-argues-that-the-doctrine-now-subsidizes-falsehoods