Libel Laws CRUSH Dershowitz—Media Untouchable?

Hand holding gavel in courtroom setting.

After years of left-leaning media attacking conservative voices, a federal appeals court has thrown out Alan Dershowitz’s libel case against CNN, upholding a legal precedent that leaves public figures with little recourse against even the most slanted media misrepresentations.

Story Snapshot

The Eleventh Circuit dismissed Dershowitz’s defamation lawsuit, siding with CNN over allegations of misrepresented impeachment arguments.
The court reaffirmed the “actual malice” standard, making it nearly impossible for public figures to win libel cases against major media outlets.
This ruling protects aggressive media commentary but raises concerns about unchecked media power and erosion of reputational rights for conservatives.
Dershowitz’s case illustrates how current law shields mainstream media from accountability, even amid claims of deliberate distortion.

Court Dismisses Dershowitz’s Defamation Suit Against CNN

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on August 29, 2025, that Alan Dershowitz’s defamation lawsuit against CNN could not proceed, affirming a lower court’s summary judgment in the network’s favor. Dershowitz, a celebrated legal scholar and Trump impeachment defense attorney, accused CNN of deliberately misrepresenting his Senate trial statements in 2020, falsely suggesting he argued that a president could act illegally to get reelected. The appellate court found Dershowitz failed to provide evidence that CNN commentators acted with “actual malice,” the required legal standard for public figures to prevail in libel lawsuits.

According to the court, testimony from CNN’s journalists and commentators established a sincere belief in their interpretation of Dershowitz’s words, with no proof of knowing or reckless disregard for the truth. This decision closes the books on Dershowitz’s legal options, confirming that under current law, even prominent media figures cannot be held liable without clear evidence of intentional or reckless falsehood. This outcome raises alarms for many conservatives, who have long pointed to biased coverage and selective reporting by left-leaning outlets as a threat to honest public debate and constitutional values.

The “Actual Malice” Standard and Its Impact on Media Accountability

This case centers on the “actual malice” standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), which requires public figures to prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. While designed to protect robust public debate and the First Amendment, this precedent has increasingly made it difficult for conservatives and other public figures to defend their reputations when confronted with media distortion. The courts have consistently ruled that even strong editorializing or groupthink inside newsrooms does not amount to actual malice without explicit evidence of false intent or egregious recklessness.

Legal experts, including those cited in commentary on the case, note that evidence such as internal emails expressing strong opinions or ideological bias cannot meet the high threshold for malice. As a result, media organizations enjoy broad latitude to interpret, editorialize, and even mischaracterize statements by public figures, so long as they do not knowingly or recklessly spread falsehoods. For conservatives already frustrated by what they view as an entrenched mainstream media bias, this outcome reinforces the perception that the legal deck is stacked against them when seeking accountability for reputational harm—a major concern for anyone who values truth and fairness in public discourse.

Broader Consequences for Conservative Voices and Constitutional Debate

The defeat of Dershowitz’s lawsuit underscores a broader trend: American media outlets face little legal risk for slanted or misleading coverage of high-profile conservative figures. In the short term, this ruling reassures networks like CNN that sharp commentary is safe from libel claims, provided it is rooted in a “sincere belief.” Longer term, the decision may embolden aggressive media tactics against political opponents, while critics warn it erodes meaningful protections for reputational rights and honest debate—core conservative values threatened by unchecked media power.

[Eugene Volokh] Alan Dershowitz's Libel Case Over CNN's Coverage of His Defense in Trump Impeachment Thrown Out https://t.co/v4JGdXsOiG

— Volokh Conspiracy (@VolokhC) September 2, 2025

While some legal scholars argue that protecting press freedom is paramount, others contend the current standard makes it nearly impossible for public figures to challenge even the most damaging distortions. As cultural and political battles intensify, this legal shield for the press may increasingly frustrate Americans seeking redress for perceived media overreach, fueling calls for reform that restores balance between free speech and individual dignity—especially for those committed to constitutional principles, limited government, and the integrity of public life.