How have courts ruled on Dershowitz’s defamation suits against major media outlets?
Executive summary
Federal courts have moved this high-profile defamation fight through multiple stages: a Florida district judge initially allowed Alan Dershowitz’s $300 million suit against CNN to proceed in 2021, finding his complaint plausible and rejecting certain privilege and opinion defenses [1] [2], but later rulings dismissed the claim for failure to meet the Supreme Court’s “actual malice” standard and the 11th Circuit affirmed that dismissal in 2025, while one appellate judge lamented that the law barred relief despite calling the coverage “defamatory” under ordinary meanings [3] [4] [5].
1. The procedural win that let the case survive early challenges
In May 2021 U.S. District Judge Raag Singhal denied CNN’s motion to dismiss and held that Dershowitz had plausibly alleged that edited clips and commentator reactions could constitute “mixed” defamatory statements rather than protected opinion, and that the fair‑report privilege did not automatically shield CNN, allowing discovery and the suit to proceed [1] [2] [3].
2. The evidentiary and legal hurdle: actual malice under Sullivan
Despite the district court’s finding that the complaint survived pleading-stage defenses, later courts scrutinized whether Dershowitz — a public figure — proved that CNN’s broadcasters or producers knowingly published falsehoods or acted with reckless disregard for the truth, the “actual malice” requirement originating in New York Times v. Sullivan that courts uniformly applied to bar his claim [6] [5] [7].
3. Appellate rejection and the 11th Circuit’s reasoning
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, concluding Dershowitz produced no evidence that CNN personnel entertained serious doubts about their reporting or acted with the requisite reckless disregard, and the panel found contemporaneous internal messages more consistent with sincere belief in the accuracy of the coverage than with a scheme to defame [5] [4].
4. Aconcurring voice and the ideological tug-of-war over the doctrine
Judge Barbara Lagoa’s concurring opinion — explicitly noted in multiple reports and advocacy filings — said she believed CNN had “defamed” Dershowitz in ordinary terms but felt compelled to uphold the dismissal because Sullivan’s actual‑malice standard blocks recovery for public figures, a point that has become a central argument in Dershowitz’s push for higher-court review [4] [8].
5. Skirmishes over funding disclosure and the Supreme Court bid
Alongside merits disputes, litigation over discovery and who was funding Dershowitz’s legal defense surfaced, with CNN seeking donor identities and courts entertaining limited disclosure debates [9]; after the 11th Circuit loss Dershowitz petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit whether the Sullivan actual‑malice rule should remain as applied to public figures, framing the case as a vehicle to alter the high bar for defamation claims [7] [10].
6. The state of play and competing narratives
The judicial record shows a split between factfinder-level sympathy for Dershowitz’s claim that CNN mischaracterized his Senate remarks and higher-court adherence to constitutional free‑speech protections that make libel recovery by public figures difficult, with advocacy groups and Dershowitz arguing Sullivan unduly insulates media while outlets and courts warn that lowering the standard would chill robust debate — a tension made explicit in appellate opinions, Reuters reporting, and advocacy filings [2] [5] [8].