Advertisement

Supreme Court declines to revisit precedent-setting libel case

Supreme Court declines to revisit precedent-setting libel case
In an opinion released Monday, the Supreme Court declined to revisit a 1964 ruling that put in place a higher threshold for those in the public eye to prove libel, with a dissent authored by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. File Pool photo by Erin Schaff/UPI | License Photo

June 27 (UPI) -- In an opinion released Monday, the Supreme Court declined to revisit a 1964 ruling that put in place a higher threshold for those in the public eye to prove libel.

The justices voted not to hear the case Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Southern Poverty Law Center, with Justice Clarence Thomas authoring the dissenting opinion.

Advertisement

"I would grant certiorari in this case to revisit the 'actual malice' standard," Thomas wrote, saying the opinion lumps Coral Ridge's Christian ministry in with groups like the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis.

"This case is one of many showing how New York Times and its progeny have allowed media organizations and interest groups 'to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.'"

RELATED Supreme Court sides with praying coach in religious freedom case

In the current case, which the Supreme Court declined to hear, Coral Ridge applied to receive donations through AmazonSmile, a program that allows Amazon customers to contribute to approved nonprofit groups. It later learned it was ineligible for the program after the Southern Poverty Law Center designated it as an "Anti-LGBT hate group" over its religious views concerning human sexuality and marriage.

Advertisement

Coral Ridge failed in lower courts to force the law center to remove the designation from its website. It eventually filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking to revisit the libel standard.

The precedent-setting 1964 New York Times vs. Sullivan ruling created a higher bar for public figures to prove libel claims.

RELATED Texas' abortion-rights movement sets its sights on the long run

"To sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate," states the primary holding in the original case.

RELATED 'Fuller House' alum Jodie Sweetin clashes with police at abortion-rights protest

Latest Headlines

Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us

Advertisement