The Supreme Court, in a notable move, added no new cases to its agenda on Tuesday morning. Garnering the attention of legal professionals and press freedom advocates was the court’s refusal of a case which sought to overturn the landmark decision of New York Times v. Sullivan. The details of this unfoldment were disclosed in a list of orders following the justices’ private conference last week. In total, approximately 180 cases were denied a review.
The denied case, Blankenship v. NBCUniversal, once again brought up a request to reconsider the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision — the case that established the “actual malice” standard. This standard dictates that for a defamation statement to be proven, a public figure must demonstrate that the statement was made with a deliberate disregard for the truth or knowledge of its falsehood.
Don Blankenship, the former CEO of Massey Energy, lodged this appeal. Blankenship experienced a dizzying fall from the energy industry’s high ranks when he was convicted in 2015 for conspiring to violate federal safety standards, contributing to a fatal 2010 mine explosion in West Virginia. Shortly after his release from prison, Blankenship declared his intentions to run for a U.S. Senate seat once held by Democrat Joe Manchin.
In the lead up to his campaign, Blankenship accused news reporters and organizations of defamation, claiming that their coverage falsely dubbed him a felon, though his year-long prison tenure did not meet the duration requirement to be classified as a felony. However, both the district court and the court of appeals sided with the news outlets, stating there was insufficient evidence to show “actual malice” in their reporting.
In a recent request to the Supreme Court, Blankenship made another attempt to challenge the Sullivan ruling. The denial of this review request was notably accompanied by a concise concurrence penned by Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas suggested that while Blankenship’s case might not serve as an appropriate vessel to review the “actual malice” standard due to West Virginia law’s similar requirements, the court should address the matter in a different case.