The Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to revisit the landmark First Amendment decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, rebuffing a request to take another look at decades-old precedent that created a higher bar for public figures to claim libel in civil suits.
The media world has for years relied on the unanimous decision in the 1964 case to fend off costly defamation lawsuits brought by public figures. The ruling established the requirement that public figures show “actual malice” before they can succeed in a libel dispute.
Despite being a mainstay in US media law, the Sullivan decision has increasingly come under fire by conservatives both inside and outside the court, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who said on Tuesday that he still wanted to revisit Sullivan at some point.
“In an appropriate case, however, we should reconsider New York Times and our other decisions displacing state defamation law,” Thomas wrote in a brief concurrence to the court’s decision not to take up the case. He said that the case, Don Blankenship v. NBC Universal, LLC, was a poor vehicle to reconsider Sullivan.
I guess Clarence is pissy he can’t more easily sue news agencies for reporting about the lack of ethics he and his wife display?
That could be it. Tbh I thought this was really good timing right after the other piece about Blankenship wanting to sue news agencies.
He wants to open the floodgates to allow for SLAPP suits on all figures who step out of line.
Of course he wants it to be easier to sue journalists for defamation–they keep writing about his corruption. How else is he supposed to silence them?
Sounds like Thomas found another precedent he hasn’t had a chance at destroying yet, well except Loving of course, and the “this isn’t the right vehicle” bs is just sour grapes.
“This isn’t the right vehicle”, means one of two things:
- The other justices told him they wouldn’t consider it and told him to pipe the fuck down.
- If he got the ruling he wants, it would be too narrow. He wants something that has broad impact.
