The Supreme Court has ordered CNN to respond to a petition asking it to reconsider one of the most consequential press freedom rulings in American history.

Attorneys for Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz filed a petition for a writ of certiorari urging the Court to overturn or limit New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the 1964 decision that made it nearly impossible for public figures to win defamation suits against media organizations.

CNN had waived its right to respond last month. The Court told the network to file one anyway.

The case was distributed for conference on February 20, though the Court has not yet decided whether it will hear the case, Newsweek reported. That the justices want to see CNN's argument before making that decision is itself significant. It suggests at least some interest in revisiting a legal shield that legacy media has wielded for more than six decades.

What CNN allegedly did

The underlying dispute traces back to January 29, 2020, when Dershowitz appeared on the Senate floor as counsel for President Donald Trump during impeachment proceedings. Responding to a question from Senator Cruz about quid pro quo, Dershowitz laid out three categories of presidential conduct: actions motivated by the public interest, actions motivated by electoral interest, and actions motivated by "personal pecuniary interest."

He drew the line clearly. In his own words:

"If a hypothetical President of the United States said to a hypothetical leader of a foreign country: Unless you build a hotel with my name on it and unless you give me a million-dollar kickback, I will withhold the funds. That is an easy case. That is purely corrupt and in the purely private interest."

That statement was unambiguous. Dershowitz explicitly said that a president who engaged in bribery or extortion for personal gain could be impeached. He was distinguishing between different kinds of motivation, not giving blanket immunity to presidential misconduct.

According to his attorneys' petition, CNN knew this. The network possessed the complete video and transcript. Yet its commentators told viewers the opposite. Dershowitz's legal team put it plainly:

"Though CNN indisputably possessed the complete video and transcript of his statement, … its commentators systematically disregarded the qualifying language that gave Dershowitz's statement its true meaning, attributing to him a position he had expressly rejected: that presidents could engage in any conduct whatsoever, including bribery and extortion, without committing an impeachable offense."

This wasn't a difference of interpretation. It wasn't a close call about a vague remark. The network had the full text and chose to present the opposite of what Dershowitz said. That is the allegation at the heart of this case, and it's the kind of conduct that the actual malice standard was never designed to protect.

The Sullivan problem

Dershowitz filed his defamation suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Florida law. The district court ruled in CNN's favor on summary judgment. Lower courts held that the actual malice standard from Sullivan barred Dershowitz from seeking any remedy.

Under Sullivan, a public figure cannot recover damages for defamation unless they prove the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. In practice, this standard has become a nearly impenetrable fortress for media defendants. A network can possess a full transcript, broadcast a distorted version of what someone said, and escape liability because proving what was happening inside the heads of producers and on-air personalities is almost impossible.

The standard made a certain kind of sense in 1964, when the Court sought to protect newspapers covering the civil rights movement from retaliatory lawsuits by hostile public officials in the Deep South. The media landscape was defined by print newspapers, three broadcast networks, and a public that had limited access to original source material. If a newspaper misquoted a public figure, readers had little ability to verify the original statement themselves.

That world no longer exists.

Why the internet age changes everything

Dershowitz's attorneys argue that more than half a century of experience with Sullivan has exposed its failures, particularly in an era where the meaning of "press" has fundamentally changed. Their petition states:

"Indeed, after more than half a century of experience with Sullivan, the time has come for this Court to overrule or limit Sullivan in light of experience and the vastly changed meaning of 'press' in the internet age."

The argument carries weight. In 1964, there was no mechanism for ordinary citizens to watch a full Senate floor statement on their phones within minutes of it being delivered. Today, anyone with an internet connection can pull up the transcript. The asymmetry of information that justified Sullivan's broad protections has collapsed. When a network distorts a public figure's words, the public can now see the distortion in real time. What hasn't changed is the legal architecture that lets the network get away with it.

The petition asks the Court to consider whether the actual malice standard should be discarded entirely, or at a minimum, whether it should no longer apply to private citizens who become public figures. That distinction matters. Dershowitz is not an elected official. He is a law professor who was retained as counsel in a proceeding. The idea that he must clear the same legal bar as a sitting president or senator to recover for provably false statements about him is a question worth asking.

A shield that became a sword

The broader conservative critique of Sullivan is straightforward: a doctrine designed to protect the press from government retaliation has become a doctrine that protects the press from accountability. Major media organizations can broadcast falsehoods about private citizens, political commentators, and public figures with near impunity. The legal cost and evidentiary burden of proving actual malice mean most potential plaintiffs never file suit. Those who do, like Dershowitz, face summary judgment.

The result is a media environment where the incentive structure rewards recklessness. Getting the story wrong carries no legal consequence, so long as the target is famous enough. Getting the story right carries no additional reward. The standard doesn't distinguish between an honest mistake and a deliberate distortion, because proving deliberateness is the very thing the standard makes functionally impossible.

Several sitting justices have signaled openness to reconsidering Sullivan in recent years. Whether this case is the vehicle they choose remains to be seen. But the facts Dershowitz presents are almost tailor-made for the question: a network that possessed the full record, broadcast the opposite of what it showed, and then invoked the First Amendment as a defense.

CNN tried to make this go away quietly. The Court told them to show up and answer.