On Friday, CNN presented a compelling case to the Supreme Court, arguing that renowned criminal defense attorney and law professor Alan Dershowitz is not the right person to challenge First Amendment interpretations. CNN contended that Dershowitz’s defamation lawsuit is bound to fail regardless of the outcome.

In their brief in opposition, CNN urged the justices to recognize that Dershowitz’s core grievance—his claim that pundits misinterpreted his defense of President Donald Trump during the Ukraine impeachment proceedings in 2020—does not constitute a valid defamation case. The network further emphasized that this issue should not be used as a means to challenge the pivotal New York Times v. Sullivan precedent established in 1964.

CNN’s legal team, represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, argued that several media outlets had interpreted Dershowitz’s comments in a similar manner at the time. They noted that CNN had even provided Dershowitz with airtime on two occasions to address his concerns. They urged the Supreme Court to dismiss any attempts to significantly restrict the press’s and public’s freedom to debate the President’s rationale for maintaining his position.

The brief stated that Dershowitz’s case is weak, lacking any substantial evidence, and misrepresents opinions and interpretations as factual statements. “Dershowitz cannot paper over these flaws,” CNN stated firmly.

During the impeachment proceedings, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas questioned Dershowitz on the relevance of a quid pro quo, following allegations from House Democrats. They claimed Trump abused his power by withholding military aid to Ukraine unless its president initiated an investigation into Joe Biden before the 2020 election.

During the impeachment trial, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked Dershowitz if it mattered whether there was a quid pro quo, after House Democrats alleged that Trump abused his power by corruptly withholding military aid to Ukraine on the condition that its president announce an investigation into Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 election.

“The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the ‘quo’ were in some way illegal,” Dershowitz began to answer, naming as “three possible motives” for seeking the “quo” the public interest, political self-interest, and financial self-interest.

On “public interest,” Dershowitz told Cruz that “[e]very public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest, and mostly you’re right — your election is in the public interest — and if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

Dershowitz alleged in his complaint that CNN commentary, selective editing, and quote selection knowingly or recklessly put forth a “one-sided and false narrative that Professor Dershowitz believes and argued that as long as the President believes his reelection is in the public interest, that he could do anything at all – including illegal acts – and be immune from impeachment.”

That, he said, “falsely” portrayed him as “a constitutional scholar and intellectual who had lost his mind.”

Law&Crime has been following the case since it was filed. Most recently, Dershowitz asked the justices to grant his petition for a writ of certiorari, following back-to-back losses in district court and then before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

He repeatedly cited the concurrence of U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Trump appointee who agreed that Sullivan meant the $300 million suit had to be dismissed while also offering a separate opinion saying that CNN had “simply lied” about Dershowitz on air. There was nothing to be done in light of Sullivan, Lagoa noted.

Among the questions Dershowitz subsequently presented to SCOTUS was whether the “actual malice standard established in Sullivan, or as extended by its progeny, should be discarded altogether or at least as to private citizens who are public figures.”

On that point, CNN responded that Dershowitz has “courted the notoriety that follows the representation of controversial clients, such as O.J. Simpson, Claus Von Bulow, and President Trump,” making him a “uniquely unfit petitioner to force a constitutional showdown over Sullivan.”

In addition, CNN said he “ignores a fatal—and glaring—vehicle problem,” namely that Florida law independently adopted the same “actual malice” standard.

“No matter what, Dershowitz loses under Florida’s parallel actual-malice standard,” CNN stated. “This Court should not even contemplate whether to modify Sullivan when the claims ‘are independently subject to an actual-malice standard as a matter of state law.’”

In parting shots, the network suggested Dershowitz’s decision to sue and appeal all the way up to SCOTUS shows he was no “hapless private citizen thrust into the public spotlight” when he defended the president of the United States in front of the nation.

“And he even treated the filing of his petition in this Court as an opportunity to rotate the public spotlight back in his direction,” the brief said. “Dershowitz’s legal arguments inhabit an alternate universe of facts.”

“In every way, Dershowitz’s position—not Sullivan—is the aberration,” CNN added, asking the justices to reject the petition once and for all.

Dershowitz has said that his petition, which included potential outcomes “short” of overturning Sullivan in its entirety, aims to “create a fairer balance.” Now the ball is in the justices’ court.