Summary
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in *Berisha v. Lawson*, declining to review the application of the *New York Times v. Sullivan* actual malice standard to a public figure defamation claim. In separate dissents, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch urged the Court to reconsider the standard, arguing it lacks historical and constitutional support and has evolved into an effective immunity for publishers in the modern media landscape. The dissents signal a potential shift in First Amendment defamation jurisprudence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether this Court should reconsider the actual malice requirement as it applies to public figures.
Holdings
- The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Key quotations
“The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.” (1)
“This Court's pronouncement that the First Amendment requires public figures to establish actual malice bears 'no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.'” (2)
“The Bill of Rights protects the freedom of the press not as a favor to a particular industry, but because democracy cannot function without the free exchange of ideas.” (2)
Factual background
In 2015, Guy Lawson published a book about three Miami youngsters who became international arms dealers, involving the Albanian mafia. The book claimed that Shkelzen Berisha was a key figure in the Albanian mafia. The book was adapted into the film War Dogs. Berisha sued Lawson for defamation under Florida law. The District Court granted summary judgment to Lawson, concluding that Berisha was a public figure and that he could not show actual malice. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Procedural history
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents, finding that Berisha was a public figure and that he had not satisfied the actual malice standard. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court denied certiorari.