Infamous criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz once again gave the plaintiff's table a try for an appeal to his defamation suit against Cable News Network (CNN), which was dismissed in 2023 by a federal judge in Florida. He fared no better with the Eleventh Circuit on September 2, 2025, as they granted CNN summary judgment in the $300 million claim. Or did he?
While the panel had unanimous agreement on the ruling, two of the judges used the concurrence to post opposing claims and warnings about the validity of New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark libel, slander, and defamation ruling made by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in 1964. One claimed Sullivan both allows defamation and ties the courts' hands when it comes to doing anything about it, but the other warned that disturbing the protections it provides would have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press, particularly in this political climate.
In 2023, Justice Clarence Thomas openly called for a case that would allow a reconsideration of Sullivan. With Dershowitz hinting at further legal battles ahead, it raises the question of whether the latest loss of his defamation suit was a stinging defeat or a planned sacrificial lamb.
Well, Someone Has To Represent Them
Retired from teaching at Harvard Law School, Dershowitz is perhaps more well-known as part of the defense team for several high-profile clients, including O.J. Simpson, Harvey Weinstein, and Jeffrey Epstein. He also defended President Donald Trump in the 2020 Senate trial after Trump had been impeached in the House of Representatives for the first time.
Claiming he would "be there to defend the integrity of the Constitution," Dershowitz presented oral arguments defending Trump. In his oration, he stated that proof of a crime was required to impeach a president, which some pointed out was exactly the opposite of what he'd said during President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial twenty-plus years previously. The GOP-majority Senate voted to acquit Trump of the charges.
During Dershowitz's oral arguments, Senator Ted Cruz asked about the lawfulness of quid pro quo arrangements. After responding that it would only be unlawful if the quo were illegal, Dershowitz went on to discuss three possible motives. While explaining how public interest figured into a quid pro quo, Dershowitz's answer opened itself to an interpretation that he believed a president who felt his reelection was "in the public interest" could not commit an action that would make him subject to impeachment.
This was only part of the answer Dershowitz gave, but it went viral online and was quickly pounced on by cable news shows. This included CNN, where several commentators were shocked and derisive about the comment. Dershowitz later appeared on CNN twice to explain what he'd said and to put it into what he considered the proper context. Claiming that the network was guilty of defamation, he filed a $300 million lawsuit in September 2020. After the suit was dismissed in 2023, Dershowitz appealed.
Are Judges Supposed To Do That?
The decision handed down by the three-judge panel from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals may have been unanimous in upholding the dismissal of Dershowitz's suit, but at least one member wasn't happy about it. U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa let it be known that she voted the way she did because of Sullivan, echoing Justice Thomas's assertion that the ruling needs reconsideration.
Lagoa went so far as to state that CNN had lied and that there could be "no dispute" that the network defamed him. According to Lagoa, only Sullivan kept him from receiving "justice" from the network. She also suggested this case had merit for challenging the precedent set by Sullivan.
Charles Wilson and Britt Grant, the other two judges on the panel, felt that nothing Dershowitz had presented showed actual malice by the CNN commentators or proof that they had knowledge of or reckless disregard for a false statement they may have made. Wilson also warned against the conservative push to overrule Sullivan, noting that it's the bedrock for First Amendment rulings and that allowing state libel laws to take its place would adversely affect the freedom of the press.
With Justice Thomas clamoring for the opportunity to erase Sullivan, Dershowitz's case may not be quite dead yet. Whether it ends up a convenient vehicle for SCOTUS to overturn Sullivan is yet to be determined.
Related Resources
- Appealing a Court Decision or Judgment (FindLaw's Filing a Lawsuit)
- Libel, Slander, and Defamation Law: The Basics (FindLaw's Torts and Personal Injury Law)
- Presidential Impeachment Cases (FindLaw's U.S. Constitution)
