Supreme Court Orders CNN to Respond
We have a MAJOR DEVELOPMENT in our landmark case against CNN at the United States Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has just ordered CNN to file a formal response to our petition – the petition we filed to hold CNN and the mainstream media accountable for spreading falsehoods during President Donald Trump's Senate impeachment trial, when they twisted and manipulated what a member of the president's legal team actually argued. I know because I was there on the floor of the Senate when it happened.
When we filed our petition for writ of certiorari in this critical defamation case, CNN appeared to think it could simply ignore it. That's a common tactic. If a party believes the Court isn't likely to take a case, they can waive their response and hope the Justices quietly deny review.
That's exactly what CNN tried to do.
Their strategy seemed simple: Don't engage. Don't draw attention to it. Let it die quietly.
But the Supreme Court didn't let that happen. Instead, the Court stepped in and ordered CNN to respond – in writing.
That matters.
It doesn't guarantee the Court will ultimately take the case. But it does signal that at least some of the Justices believe this issue deserves serious consideration.
And it should.
This case challenges the sweeping protections created under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan – a standard that has shielded corporate media outlets from accountability even when they push demonstrably false narratives. We are asking the Court to revisit that precedent and restore balance to defamation law in America.
Take action with us and sign the petition: Make CNN Pay for Its Lies at the Supreme Court.
For too long, legacy media organizations have operated with near-total immunity, smearing reputations and then hiding behind legal doctrines crafted in a very different era. Our case asks a fundamental question: Should powerful media corporations be allowed to knowingly publish falsehoods without consequence?
The Supreme Court's order requiring CNN to respond tells us this fight is very much alive.
My dad, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, joined our Sekulow broadcast this week to break down what this development means, what happens next, and why this case could have national implications for media accountability and free speech:
"We filed our cert petition, that is a formal request, probably 80 pages of briefing, asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. . . . This is a huge development on a very strategic and important case, that the Supreme Court of the United States has ordered CNN to file a response in writing by mid-to-late March. So, they've got to file in about four weeks. The importance of this is that we will have the opportunity to respond again to CNN.
"We were set for a conference to vote on certiorari on Thursday [February 19]. They were to vote tomorrow on the case, whether they were going to hear it or not. But what happened here was CNN was hoping that there would be no order. It would go to conference and be denied.
"But instead, a number of Justices of the Supreme Court said, No, we want to hear what CNN has to say, and then we'll decide if we take it. So, it's going to delay it until probably April, maybe even May. We'll file another round of briefs in this, but this is a really significant case for accountability in the media, and [it is] long overdue."
This case centers on a legal standard that dates back to 1964 – a very different era in American media. At that time, there were just three major television networks, local newspapers dominated the landscape, and the internet was still decades away.
Under the now 60-plus-year-old precedent of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, if you are deemed a "public figure," it's not enough to prove that a media outlet published something false about you. You must prove "actual malice" – that the outlet either knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
That standard may have made sense in a pre-digital world. Back then, access to recordings, transcripts, and source material was limited. Verifying what was actually said or done could be difficult, and mistakes were harder to immediately expose.
But today the landscape is entirely different.
Full speeches, transcripts, and video recordings are available instantly. Fact-checking tools are powerful and accessible. Media organizations have more resources than ever to verify what they publish. With those tools comes greater responsibility – and far fewer excuses for getting it wrong.
If a major network broadcasts something false today, it's not because information was unavailable. It's because someone chose not to check – or worse, chose to push a narrative anyway.
The Supreme Court's decision to order CNN to respond sends a clear signal. CNN may have hoped this case would quietly disappear. Instead, the Court has required them to engage. That tells us the Justices recognize this issue deserves serious scrutiny.
And that conversation is long overdue.
