A Press Freedom Case in Peril, From a Lawyer Who Helped Write It

NYT Homepage

by Adam Liptak

February 19, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

Alan Dershowitz, a prominent Harvard law professor and former Supreme Court clerk, is challenging the landmark 1964 case *New York Times v. Sullivan*, which established protections for press freedom in libel cases involving public officials. In his petition to the Supreme Court, Dershowitz argues that the legal precedent set by this case has become outdated due to changes in media dynamics. He asserts that modern media realities render the original decision less applicable and calls for its revision or overturning. Dershowitz, known for representing high-profile figures like O.J. Simpson, Jeffrey Epstein, and former President Trump, is currently suing CNN for defamation. He claims the network mischaracterized his defense of Trump during the impeachment trial, contending that without Sullivan's protections, he would have won the case. This case highlights his belief that the precedent has shielded media entities from accountability in cases where they allegedly defame public figures. CNN, however, declined to respond to Dershowitz’s petition, a move often indicative of insubstantial or frivolous claims. This stance suggests that Dershowitz’s challenge may lack merit and could set a significant legal precedent if successful. This case matters as it raises questions about the relevance of *New York Times v. Sullivan* in today's media landscape. If upheld, Dershowitz's arguments could weaken protections for journalists and media organizations, potentially altering libel law dynamics and impacting press freedom. The outcome could influence how defamation cases are handled in the digital age, affecting both public

Verticals

newsgeneral

Originally published on NYT Homepage on 2/19/2026