Supreme Court signals landmark 1964 ruling is secure

According to the New York Times, Clarence Thomas has been calling for the Supreme Court to reconsider their landmark ruling in the 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, a case that impacted many laws regarding libel in America.

Media Nation reports that the Supreme Court does NOT seem inclined to revisit the libel protection case.

The New York Times wrote:

"It was notable that just five days before President Trump took office last month, the Supreme Court seemed to go out of its way to signal that it is not ready to embrace one of his most dearly held goals: to 'open up our libel laws' and overrule the Sullivan decision."

At the heart of Times v. Sullivan, which was a unanimous decision at the time, is the idea that public officials must prove "actual malice" to win a libel case.

This means that in order to be convicted of libel, the accused must show "reckless disregard" for what they know to be true.

The Times v. Sullivan case narrowed the definition of "reckless disregard" for the truth.

According to The Nevada Independent, it was lawyers for casino mogul Steve Wynn who most recently pressured the Supreme Court to revisit the case.

Democrats were worried that "this would be a dangerous time to revisit the protection of the free press."

David Orentlicher, a professor at UNLV’s William S. Boyd School of Law who is also a Democratic member of the Assembly, does not want politicians to have more power about what the media is or is not allowed to say while Donald Trump is in office.

"Unfortunately, we have an administration that has decided to target the press and others who write critical commentary. There is a blurring of lines between government officials and private persons who have power. This is exactly the wrong time to weaken the protection of the press," he said.

At least for now, the rest of the Supreme Court does not seem to share Clarence Thomas' desire to revisit the case.

"All of this suggests that there remain only two votes to overturn the Sullivan decision," the New York Times reported.

Two is "well short of the four it takes to add a case to the court’s docket, much less the five required to prevail on the merits."