Justice Clarence Thomas calls for reconsideration of landmark libel case
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Washington (CNN) Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday called for reconsideration of a landmark First Amendment precedent, criticizing the 1964 decision that the Constitution creates a higher barrier for public figures to claim libel.
Thomas wrote alongside a court decision not to take up the case of a woman who accused Bill Cosby of sexual misconduct in 2014. He suggested that the seminal case New York Times v. Sullivan, holding that public figures have a higher burden to prove libel, was wrongly decided.
"New York Times and the Court's decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law," Thomas wrote.
"If the Constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard in state-law defamation suits, then neither should we," the opinion states.
He continued, saying "We did not begin meddling in this area until 1964, nearly 175 years after the First Amendment was ratified. The States are perfectly capable of striking an acceptable balance between encouraging robust public discourse and providing a meaningful remedy for reputational harm. We should reconsider our jurisprudence in this area."
His position echoes complaints of President Donald Trump, who has called for libel laws to be reconsidered in light of news stories about him, said CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck.
"Since he was on the campaign trail, President Trump has complained about libel laws in the United States, and has argued that they should be rewritten," Vladeck said. "Justice Thomas's opinion today concurring in the denial of certiorari is a roadmap to exactly that result."
It would take four justices to grant such a case should one even reach the high court and no other justice joined Thomas' opinion on Tuesday.
Trump has harped on the issue repeatedly, publicly calling on politicians to change the currently standing libel laws.
"Isn't it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost. Don't know why Washington politicians don't change libel laws?" Trump wrote on Twitter in September.
In another instance, Trump specifically named The New York Times i n a March 2017 tweet : "The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?"
Article photo: US Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas sits for an official photo.
Tags
Who is online
102 visitors
I am of the idea that people that live in and make money off of public life can be scrutinized.
If one wants to be in public life, one must take the good with the bad.
We don't have enough daily drama and actual legal cases that have taken years to get to the Supreme Court?
Now Thomas echos Trump and wants to review a 55 year old case?
Because Donald wants $$ for each insult hurled at him?
Well good luck with that, maybe Mr Trump can get the other living Presidents on board once he pays up for all of the insults
and supposed libel, he has heaped on them collectively for decades.
Let the Church say, amen. "Amen!"
Also, Donald Trump (the dirtiest player in the game) should stop asking and causing his employees and staff to sign NDA's (Non-Disclosure Agreements) so people can know what the truth is from the sources freely—no run-around channels.
True. he has said many nasty things about people yet one says something against him and it should not be allowed?
It is a shame that we have a SC justice echoing his sentiment.
Trump the snowflake...A bigly snowflake
Well, that would put the hosts of The View out of business in a hurry.
You mean you wouldn't miss McCain and Behar yelling at each other?
Even that isn't enough to get me to watch that show.
Don't care for it myself.
Speaking of insults and possible libel, Judge AB Jackson thought very little of Roger Stones apology for putting her face on one of his Instagram posts.
She not only refused the apology but ordered Stone to Court once again Thursday to discuss his possible pre trial detention.
Stone is a lying sack of shit.
Stone has always been a lying sack to shit.
Thomas speaks on the libel case?
Interesting. On February 29, 2016 Associate Justice Clarence Thomas broke a ten year silence on the court by asking a question. Why is he interested? Why is it important that public figures have protections above and beyond that of the 'common folk' to this justice at this particular time?
I'm pretty sure that a quick review of Thomas' wife's speeches would garner a plethora of defamation suits...
Yeah, there is that too.
I remember 'the Thomas' confirmation hearings and his first appearance before the senate. I believe it was Senator Strom Thurmond who remarked, "He's married to a white woman?"
When I lived in SC, Strom was who we referred to as an ageless
" piece of work "
lol
She's a Tea Party and fundamentalist evangelical. A very influential whack job.
Great idea Clarence. /s
My only demand will to include a 15 year statute of limitations.
Then Obama can file a defamation suit against Trump and Hillary Clinton can file the same against Citizens United.
BINGO