In September 2020, former Harvard Law School professor, Alan Dershowitz, filed a defamation suit against CNN after commentators broadcast a clip of Dershowitz stating, “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment”. The commentators also called him “Dershow-nuts” and claimed that he had “lost his mind.”
Dershowitz alleged that viewers understood the message to be that Trump could get away with an impeachable offense by claiming it was in the public interest. Dershowitz further claimed that his statement was taken out of context since he had followed the statement with, “The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were somehow illegal.”
Dershowitz claimed that after that broadcast, he was no longer invited to speak at multiple alleged liberal media outlets, like CNN, only receiving invitations from conservative-leaning networks like Fox News. In essence, Dershowitz claimed that the CNN commentators’ omission of the full context of his statements supported a finding of “actual malice” necessary to prevail in his defamation claim.
Actual malice is required to be established under the Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, where the victim of the defamation is a “public figure”. Actual malice means that the statements were false or made in reckless disregard of the truth, and/or made with “ill-will”.
In May 2021, U.S. District Judge Singhal for the Southern District of Florida denied CNN’s motion to dismiss, and the case was slated to go to trial in early May of 2023. CNN then filed a motion for summary judgement, claiming that Dershowitz had not proven “actual malice” because his statements were too ambiguous to be understood as the “truth” in the first place.
In late March 2023, Judge Singhal ruled in favor of CNN, holding that Dershowitz had no proof that the commentators knew the statements were false. Each commentator had testified that they did not understand Dershowitz’s statement, standing alone, as a twisting of the meanings of the other statements he had made. Judge Singhal further ruled that there is no requirement under the First Amendment that a reporter mention everything Dershowitz had said about Trump’s impeachment.
Nevertheless, Judge Singhal was sympathetic to Dershowitz and voiced his disdain for the “actual malice” standard.
The case is Alan Dershowitz v. Cable News Network Inc., case number 0:20-cv-61872, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Dershowitz is represented by John B. Williams of Williams Lopatto PLLC, Mark A Schweikert of Schweikert Law PLLC and Neil H. Koslowe of Potomac Law Group PLLC.
CNN is represented by Katherine M. Bolger of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP and George S. LeMieux and Eric C. Edison of Gunster Yoakley & Stewart.
* Lowe & Associates (“The Firm”) is a boutique entertainment and business law firm located in Beverly Hills, California. The firm has extensive experience handling cases involving defamation claims, having provided top-quality legal services to its clients since 1991. The Firm is recognized for its many achievements, including successfully litigating many high-profile cases.
Read more: Is suing for defamation worth it?
