The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to review a challenge to its landmark New York Times v. Sullivan ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas has some thoughts.

The 1964 ruling established limits on public officials’ ability to sue on grounds of defamation, as well as the need to prove a standard of “actual malice” by the outlet making the allegedly defamatory statements.

The Supreme Court declined to hear Blankenship v. NBC Universal, LLC, a lawsuit brought by coal magnate Don Blankenship, who in 2015 was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of conspiring to violate safety standards at a Virginia mine where an explosion killed 29 workers. Blankenship was sentenced to a year in prison and fined $250,000. Last year, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Blankenship then sued NBC Universal, alleging that the news company had defamed him by describing him as a “felon.” Lower courts ruled that NBC had not acted with “malice” in their statements, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

While Justice Thomas concurred that Blankenship’s case did not require a ruling by the Supreme Court, he called for the justices to review the standard set by New York Times v. Sullivan “in an appropriate case.”

“I continue to adhere to my view that we should reconsider the actual-malice standard,” Thomas wrote,” referencing his previous opinion in Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Southern Poverty Law Center. “New York Times and the Court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law,” he added, “the actual-malice standard comes at a heavy cost, allowing media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.’”

The push from Thomas comes amid widespread media reporting on allegations of corruption and improper financial relationships involving the justice. A series of investigations by ProPublica and The New York Times have uncovered unreported gifts, real estate deals, and luxury perks given to Thomas by high-profile conservative figures — many of which were not reported in financial disclosures, or weighed as conflicts of interest in relevant cases.

In April, ProPublica reported on the extent of Thomas’ relationship with billionaire Harlan Crow. The real estate mogul gifted Thomas frequent rides on private jets, vacations to luxury resorts, and trips on his superyachts. Crow also purchased $133,000 in real estate from Thomas, and footed private school tuition bills for a child Thomas was raising.

Subsequent reporting has exposed Thomas’ relationship with other powerful conservative players, including the Koch brothers, oil tycoon Paul “Tony” Novelly, H. Wayne Huizenga, the former owner of the Miami Dolphins, and investor David Sokol.

Thomas has claimed that the omissions from his financial statements were nothing more than oversights and that he had been advised that “this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1501 year ago

    It’s not a surprise, the Republicans are following the “How to Fascist: for Dummies” step by step book

    • Gaim
      link
      fedilink
      581 year ago

      And some Americans are just letting it happen, its kinda sad :/

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              121 year ago

              I remember when conservatives were loud and proud about “Better dead than red”, now they cant even scream cause they got Putins big red hammer down their throats.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                0
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Russia isn’t “red” (communist) anymore, which is what they objected to. Russia is now fascist, which they love. As much as you might like to believe otherwise, there’s nothing inconsistent about their behavior.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    21 year ago
                    1. “Fascism” is not a synonym for “authoritarianism;” it’s more specific than that. Lenin was authoritarian, but not fascist.

                    2. What was rude about what I wrote?

      • SuiXi3D
        link
        fedilink
        171 year ago

        What would you suggest we do? I’ve voted against this crap to no avail. I’ve supported causes to no avail. Nothing short of a very ugly, bloody revolution will change this, and likely not for the better.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          91 year ago

          If you look at Turkey or Hungary over the last decade, people were pissed when their governments became overreaching, but ultimately their authoritarian governments won and the people had little choice, no civil war, no grand uprising of the people. The US is going in the same direction and I doubt anything will happen that can stop it. But on the flip side dictators never last forever. Their power will wain and fall. But for most of us, that will last our entire lifetime, which is an awful future no one should be celebrating.

        • deaf_fish
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Don’t give up my friend. Things suck for sure, but we have a little power left. Spread ideas, organize your community, organize your workplace, go vote for the least fascist of the candidates.

          We probably can’t save ourselves, but we can build a solid platform for others to use. Something about old men planting trees…