Justice Thomas Assails Landmark US Libel Ruling That Protects Media

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its landmark 1964 ruling that made it harder for public figures to sue for defamation, a precedent that has served as powerful protection for the news media. Thomas took aim at the unanimous ruling in the libel case known as New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in an opinion he wrote concurring with the court's decision to end a defamation suit against Bill Cosby filed by a woman who said the comedian raped her in 1974. Thomas, one of the high court's most conservative justices, said the 55-year-old decision was not rooted in the U.S. Constitution. That ruling and subsequent ones extending it "were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law," Thomas wrote, expressing views in harmony with President Donald Trump, who often attacks the media and has advocated making it easier to sue news organizations and publishers for defamation. The New York Times v. Sullivan ruling has served as a safeguard for media reporting on public figures. Trump in January 2018 called current defamation laws "a sham and a disgrace" following the publication of a book about the White House by author Michael Wolff called "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," which among other things questioned the president's mental health. The high court's 1964 ruling held that in order to win a libel suit, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the offending statement was made with "actual malice," meaning knowledge that it was false or reckless disregard as to whether it was false. The case involved a lawsuit against the New York Times, a newspaper that Trump often criticizes for its coverage of him. Thomas wrote that "we should carefully examine the original meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments," referring to the constitutional provisions protecting freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the application of those rights to the states.  "If the Constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard in state-law defamation suits, then neither should we," Thomas wrote. Thomas said defamation law was historically a matter for the states, and should remain that way. "The states are perfectly capable of striking an acceptable balance between encouraging robust public discourse and providing a meaningful remedy for reputational harm," Thomas wrote...MORE

Thomas, one of the high court's most conservative justices, said the 55-year-old decision was not rooted in the U.S. Constitution. That ruling and subsequent ones 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," Thomas wrote. Thomas said defamation law was historically a matter for the states, and should remain that way. "The states are perfectly capable of striking an acceptable balance between encouraging robust public discourse and providing a meaningful remedy for reputational harm," Thomas wrote.

 How refreshing to see a Justice who reads the Constitution, determines the original intent and applies it to the case at hand, and in doing so recognizes the dual sovereignty incorporated in that document by our Founding Fathers. 

And shame on the media for politicizing Thomas' writing by involving Trump's recent statements on the media. It is clearly an attempt to defray the public away from the legal reasoning of Justice Thomas.

Make up your own mind and read his concurring opinion here.