CNN WINS Major Court Battle — Conservatives Stunned

Large red CNN sign outside building entrance.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals just handed CNN a major victory, dismissing Alan Dershowitz’s defamation lawsuit and reinforcing the nearly insurmountable legal barriers that protect mainstream media from accountability when they distort conservative voices.

Story Snapshot

Federal appeals court affirms dismissal of Dershowitz’s $300 million defamation suit against CNN
Court ruled CNN’s misrepresentation of Dershowitz’s Trump impeachment defense didn’t meet “actual malice” standard
Decision highlights how current legal framework shields media outlets from consequences of biased coverage
Case demonstrates the extreme difficulty conservatives face when challenging mainstream media mischaracterization

Court Shields CNN Despite Alleged Misrepresentation

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for CNN on August 29, 2025, dismissing Dershowitz’s claims entirely. The Harvard Law professor alleged CNN deliberately mischaracterized his defense arguments during Trump’s 2020 impeachment trial, portraying him as claiming presidents could commit any act if they believed it served the public interest. The court found Dershowitz failed to prove CNN acted with “actual malice,” despite his allegations of a coordinated scheme to damage his reputation through selective editing and context removal.

The Actual Malice Standard Protects Media Giants

The case hinged on the “actual malice” standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan, which requires public figures to prove media defendants either knew their statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for truth. CNN journalists testified they sincerely believed their interpretations were accurate, and the court accepted this testimony despite Dershowitz presenting evidence of internal CNN emails expressing strong anti-Trump sentiments. This legal framework essentially allows media organizations to claim good faith while pursuing ideologically driven coverage that distorts conservative positions.

Conservative Voices Face Uphill Battle Against Media Bias

Legal experts noted that even evidence of internal bias or “groupthink” within news organizations doesn’t meet the actual malice threshold. The Volokh Conspiracy analysis emphasized that editorial interpretation, regardless of fairness or accuracy, receives broad protection unless accompanied by provable knowledge of falsity. This creates a system where mainstream media can systematically misrepresent conservative arguments while claiming journalistic immunity. The decision follows a pattern of similar cases where public figures defending traditional values struggle to obtain legal recourse against biased coverage.

Broader Implications for Media Accountability

The ruling reinforces the protective shield surrounding major news networks when covering political figures, particularly those associated with conservative causes. While media advocates celebrate press freedom protections, the decision effectively demonstrates how current defamation law enables systematic misrepresentation of conservative viewpoints without meaningful consequences. The case originated from Dershowitz’s constitutional defense of Trump, highlighting how legal scholars supporting traditional constitutional principles face potential reputation damage from hostile media coverage with limited legal recourse available.