• Latest
  • Trending
  • All
  • News
  • Business
  • Lifestyle
CARSON HOLLOWAY: Here’s One Trump Legal Battle Flying Under The Radar That Has Massive Stakes

CARSON HOLLOWAY: Here’s One Trump Legal Battle Flying Under The Radar That Has Massive Stakes

July 26, 2024
LARRY PROVOST: Reopening Alcatraz Is A Brilliant Idea

LARRY PROVOST: Reopening Alcatraz Is A Brilliant Idea

May 17, 2025
Newsom Looks To Extend Carbon Cap Policy, Fund Rail Boondoggle As Possible Gas Crisis Looms

Newsom Looks To Extend Carbon Cap Policy, Fund Rail Boondoggle As Possible Gas Crisis Looms

May 17, 2025
ELLIOT RESNICK: How Israel Can Win

ELLIOT RESNICK: How Israel Can Win

May 17, 2025
DAVID BLACKMON: Why A Major Gas Pipeline Through New York Could Soon Be A Reality

DAVID BLACKMON: Why A Major Gas Pipeline Through New York Could Soon Be A Reality

May 17, 2025
AG Racks Up 23 Lawsuits Against Trump Admin While State Struggles To Curb BLM-Era Crime Spike

AG Racks Up 23 Lawsuits Against Trump Admin While State Struggles To Curb BLM-Era Crime Spike

May 17, 2025
Statue of Melania Trump Stolen in Slovenia

Statue of Melania Trump Stolen in Slovenia

May 17, 2025
‘Be Unhappy’: Shut Out Of One Job, Ed Martin Urges Americans To Keep Pushing Trump Admin To Release Docs

‘Be Unhappy’: Shut Out Of One Job, Ed Martin Urges Americans To Keep Pushing Trump Admin To Release Docs

May 17, 2025
Trump Continues Rift With Swift: ‘I Hate Taylor Swift’

Trump Continues Rift With Swift: ‘I Hate Taylor Swift’

May 16, 2025
Trump Delivers Special Birthday Wishes as Ohio Vet Turns 104

Trump Delivers Special Birthday Wishes as Ohio Vet Turns 104

May 16, 2025
GOP Senator Really Doesn’t Want To Take ‘Big Hammer’ To Biden’s Massive Climate Bill

GOP Senator Really Doesn’t Want To Take ‘Big Hammer’ To Biden’s Massive Climate Bill

May 16, 2025
Major Credit Rating Firm Downgrades US As Country Drowns In Debt

Major Credit Rating Firm Downgrades US As Country Drowns In Debt

May 16, 2025
EXCLUSIVE: IRS Quietly Puts On New Face, Ousts Anti-Trump Spokeswoman With Drunk Driving Record

EXCLUSIVE: IRS Quietly Puts On New Face, Ousts Anti-Trump Spokeswoman With Drunk Driving Record

May 16, 2025
  • Donald Trump
  • State of the Union
  • Elon Musk
  • Tariffs
  • Congress
  • Faith
  • Immigration
Saturday, May 17, 2025
  • Login
IJR
  • Politics
  • US News
  • Commentary
  • World News
  • Faith
  • Latest Polls
No Result
View All Result
IJR
No Result
View All Result
Home Op-Ed

CARSON HOLLOWAY: Here’s One Trump Legal Battle Flying Under The Radar That Has Massive Stakes

by Daily Caller News Foundation
July 26, 2024 at 9:51 pm
in Op-Ed, Wire
250 2
0
CARSON HOLLOWAY: Here’s One Trump Legal Battle Flying Under The Radar That Has Massive Stakes
491
SHARES
1.4k
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Daily Caller News Foundation

A potentially important legal development was largely overlooked amid the historic events of the past weekend.

While the political pundits were understandably fixated on the sad fate of President Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, little attention was paid to the ruling of a Florida judge that former President Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize board may proceed.

This case merits more commentary than it has so far received.

Trump is suing the Pulitzer board for a 2022 statement reaffirming the board’s earlier decision to award the prize to the New York Times and the Washington Post for their reporting on the story of the 2016 Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russian interference in that year’s presidential election. Trump claims that the statement is legally defamatory because it implies the accuracy of the Times’s and the Post’s reporting, even though Special Counsel Robert Mueller reported that his “investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Team Pulitzer sought to dismiss the case on the grounds that its statement in defense of the award amounted to pure opinion, which cannot be actionable as defamatory.

The judge, however, disagreed, holding that the Pulitzer statement was not pure but “mixed” opinion — that is, an opinion linked to facts to which the Pulitzer statement alluded but did not provide. Such mixed opinion can be actionable in American defamation law.

It is one thing to offer the mere opinion that someone is corrupt. It is another to offer such an opinion and then say, in effect, “and if you knew what I knew you would agree.” That is essentially what the Pulitzer board did by publishing their statement in defense of the award and claiming that the reporting had been reviewed by experts they had retained, but without providing any more information.

This case is significant for two reasons. First, it is one that Trump might win.

Under prevailing constitutional standards, it is notoriously difficult — and well-nigh impossible — for a “public figure” such as Trump to prevail in a libel action. The modern Supreme Court, in New York Times v. Sullivan and subsequent rulings, has held that to win a libel suit a public figure must show “actual malice”— show, in other words, that the defendant knew the defamatory statement was false or at least acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

This is very difficult to prove of a news organization, since it can always claim that it was operating on a tight deadline and thought the material was true at the time. In the present case, however, the Pulitzer board stood by the original award, and the reporting on which it had been bestowed, even after a thorough Department of Justice investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Perhaps a court would find here the knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth necessary for Trump to win even under the “actual malice” standard.

Second, and more important, if the case proceeds it might give the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, an opportunity to reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan. Trump hinted at this possibility in his TruthSocial post about the ruling. The judge, Trump said, had not allowed “Pulitzer to hide behind the deeply outdated Times v. Sullivan case, which is from a bygone Era, before the Media went Radical and Woke, as they suffer from a terminal case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

Trump has a point. The news media today is much more nakedly partisan and unscrupulous than it was in the 1960s, when New York Times v. Sullivan was decided. Hence the hysterical and routine reporting of the Trump era, often based on anonymous sources, seeking to discredit him with the public.

The Sullivan court thought it was protecting democracy with the actual malice standard, by sheltering the vigorous public discourse that is required for the voters to choose by whom they will be governed.  In practice today, however, the standard has become an impediment to rational self-government.  It permits the media to get away with publication of defamatory falsehoods about public officials and candidates for public office, thus empowering them to shape electoral outcomes by making their disfavored candidates odious to the public.

This, indeed, was the whole purpose of the “Russia collusion” storyline of the 2016 election. It is not helpful to “democracy” — that is, to the public’s right to genuinely informed consent — to allow partisans and the media to dupe voters into voting against a candidate based on defamatory misinformation.

There is another problem with New York Times v. Sullivan, one to which former President Trump did not allude in his comments. By imposing the “actual malice” standard, the Sullivan Court claimed to be implementing the requirements of the First Amendment’s clause protecting the “freedom of the press.”

In fact, however, the “actual malice” test has no basis in the original understanding of the First Amendment or in the dominant American legal tradition that prevailed up until the middle of the 20th century. The Founders’ understanding was simpler and more reasonable. It held that libel, or false and defamatory claims, were not protected at all by the “freedom of speech.” (See, for example, Justice Joseph Story’s opinion in Dexter v. Spear.) It was instead a noxious abuse of that freedom, an intrusion on the rights of others, and therefore properly actionable, whether or not the victim of the libel was a public figure.

In short, New York Times v. Sullivan was another instance of the unwarranted judicial activism for which the 1960s Warren Court was infamous. Trump’s suit against the Pulitzer board, then, has implications beyond his understandable interest in his own reputation.

It may create another opportunity for the contemporary Supreme Court to clean up the legacy of the Warren Court and return the Constitution to its original meaning, and at the same time restore libel standards that support a truthful, civil and rational public discourse.

Carson Holloway is a Washington Fellow in the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

(Featured Image Media Credit: Screen Capture/CSPAN

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Tags: big-tent-ideasDCNFU.S. News
Share196Tweet123
Daily Caller News Foundation

Daily Caller News Foundation

Advertisements

Top Stories June 10th
Top Stories June 7th
Top Stories June 6th
Top Stories June 3rd
Top Stories May 30th
Top Stories May 29th
Top Stories May 24th
Top Stories May 23rd
Top Stories May 21st
Top Stories May 17th

Join Over 6M Subscribers

We’re organizing an online community to elevate trusted voices on all sides so that you can be fully informed.





IJR

    Copyright © 2024 IJR

Trusted Voices On All Sides

  • About Us
  • GDPR Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Editorial Standards & Corrections Policy
  • Subscribe to IJR

Follow Us

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Politics
  • US News
  • Commentary
  • World News
  • Faith
  • Latest Polls

    Copyright © 2024 IJR

Top Stories June 10th Top Stories June 7th Top Stories June 6th Top Stories June 3rd Top Stories May 30th Top Stories May 29th Top Stories May 24th Top Stories May 23rd Top Stories May 21st Top Stories May 17th