Justice Clarence Thomas seems intent on reopening the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan, which is a cornerstone of First Amendment law. This isn’t the first time Thomas has expressed such a sentiment. His determination to revisit the historic judgement was evident in a 2019 decision.
The Supreme Court justice reiterated his stance in a recent concurrence denying certiorari in Blankenship v. NBC Universal. Thomas’s argument is that the Court should “reconsider the actual-malice standard” established in the Sullivan case. For Thomas, the Blankenship case, which followed the actual-malice standard as a matter of state law, presented yet another opportunity to argue for his point of view.
The implications of revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan could be profound: this case law is integral to contemporary American journalism. The ruling in question established that the Constitution prohibits a public official from seeking damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to their official conduct unless they can prove the statement was made with “actual malice”, i.e. with either knowledge of its falseness or with reckless disregard to its truth status.
However, any alterations to this legal precedent would require agreement from Thomas’s fellow justices. At present, there doesn’t appear to be enough support on the bench for such a significant shift in First Amendment jurisprudence. The looming question is whether conservatives would risk being negatively impacted by an easier path to media lawsuits.
You can read more about this issue here.