‘A battle for truth’: Supreme Court orders CNN to respond to claims it lied about President Trump

The Supreme Court has ordered cable network CNN to respond to a petition in which the broadcast outlet is accused of lying about President Donald Trump.

The word comes from an announcement by the American Center for Law and Justice, which launched the case against CNN.

Other networks could be implicated, too.

At issue, WorldNetDaily has reported, are statements made by famed law professor Alan Dershowitz.

And the case challenges the fundamental mistakes that originated in the high court’s ruling from 60 years back in New York Times v. Sullivan, in which publications are given great protections for the statements they make.

That decision says plaintiffs must prove “actual malice” for lies about them, a precedent that now is under fire.

The ACLJ has explained, “When mainstream media outlets can falsely vilify, smear, and attack public figures with impunity, there is a fundamental problem in the law. This case represents far more than one man’s fight to clear his name – it’s a battle for truth, constitutional fidelity, and the fundamental right to seek justice when wronged.”

At issue are CNN falsehoods about what Dershowitz said, regarding Trump.

The lawyer appeared before the U.S. Senate when it was considering one of the Democrats’ failed impeach-and-remove schemes against President Donald Trump.

He “delivered a carefully crafted constitutional analysis that made critical distinctions about what conduct could and could not constitute an impeachable offense,” the ACLJ explained. “Professor Dershowitz was crystal clear: Actions motivated by ‘personal pecuniary interest’ – such as a President demanding a hotel with his name on it or a million-dollar kickback – would be ‘purely corrupt’ and present ‘an easy case’ for impeachment. This wasn’t a throwaway line. It was the central point of his constitutional argument.”

But CNN characterized his comments as, “The Dershowitz Doctrine would make presidents immune from every criminal act.” Another CCN statement was that Dershowitz was “essentially saying it doesn’t matter what the quid pro quo is as long as you think you should be elected.”

The ACLJ explained, “The problem? As even the district court acknowledged, Professor Dershowitz ‘said nothing of the kind.'”

“The First Amendment protects not just speech and press, but also the right to ‘petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’ For two centuries before Sullivan, Americans understood that their right to have access to the courts to seek justice for wrongs done to them – including reputational harm. Defamation law had always (before the Sullivan case) operated under common-law principles that protected vigorous debate while holding speakers accountable for deliberate falsehoods. Remember, the First Amendment guarantee of free speech protects us from the government. CNN is not the government,” the ACLJ explained,

The legal team now has announced a major development in the case, the court’s order for CNN to respond.

“Remember when we told you that we had filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in a critical defamation lawsuit against CNN for spreading a blatantly false narrative? CNN hoped that if they ignored us, the case would go away. Fortunately, the Supreme Court had other plans,” the ACLJ reported.

“The Supreme Court is taking the case more seriously than it appears CNN did, and has ordered the cable giant to respond to our petition in our case challenging New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Now I realize that may just sound procedural. But it’s a big deal, because when you file a petition asking the Supreme Court to take your case, the other side doesn’t have to respond. In fact, it’s a common strategy if the other side thinks the Court isn’t that interested in the case. They’ll simply just waive their response, in the hope that the Justices will quietly deny the case at conference.”

The order doesn’t mean the Supreme Court will take the case, yet.

“But it does mean that at least some of the Justices think this issue deserves a closer loo,” the ACLJ said.

The ACLJ explained, “This case is about a legal standard that’s been around since 1964, a case that Professor Dershowitz had a direct connection to from his days as a law clerk for Justice Goldberg. Remember, this was back when there were only three major TV networks, local newspapers, and the world was still about 30 years away from internet access.

Supreme Court asked to reduce protections for media when they defame a celebrity