WASHINGTON (CN) — On Tuesday, Justice Clarence Thomas used the court's refusal to review a former coal baron's claims that lies in the media resulted in his failed Senate campaign to rail against decades of First Amendment precedent protecting the press.
Thomas said he agreed with the court's decision not to review the current case before them, however, he urged the justices to review a similar case in the future.
"I continue to adhere to my view that we should reconsider the actual-malice standard," the Bush appointee wrote.
For almost 60 years, the landmark ruling has protected the press from defamation suits in favor of fostering debate about government and public affairs. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the court declared that public officials can only recover damages from a defamatory falsehood relating to their official conduct if they can prove that the statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard to whether they were false or not.
Thomas described New York Times as the court usurping control over libel law to insert its own standard.
“'New York Times and the Court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law,'" Thomas wrote. "The decisions have 'no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.' And the actual-malice standard comes at a heavy cost, allowing media organizations and interest groups 'to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.'"
The conservative justice — often at the center of media coverage he disagrees with during his time on the bench — has been a long-time critic of New York Times.
"The Court cannot justify continuing to impose a rule of its own creation when it has not 'even inquired whether the First or Fourteenth Amendment, as originally understood, encompasses an actual-malice standard,'” Thomas wrote.
Thomas' latest attack on New York Times came in a challenge presented by Don Blankenship, who served as CEO of Massey Energy in 2010. Blankenship urged the justices to review the high court’s landmark ruling New York Times, characterizing its standards as “a clear and present danger to our democracy.”
“New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and its progeny grant the press a license to publish defamatory falsehoods that misinform voters, manipulate elections, intensify polarization, and incite unrest. Election disinformation undermines our nation’s capacity for genuine self-government,” Eric Peter Early, an attorney with Early Sullivan Wright representing Blankenship, wrote in his petition.
Specifically, Blankenship says the press mischaracterized his criminal charges that resulted from a 2010 mine explosion that killed 29 people, the country’s worst mining disaster in decades. Blankenship was convicted of conspiracy to willfully violate federal mine safety laws and regulations. Prosecutors presented evidence that Blankenship was aware of safety violations in the mines his company ran but decided it was cheaper to break the safety laws and pay the fines than to fix the problems.
The district court sentenced Blankenship to one year in prison and a $250,000 fine for his crime. The Fourth Circuit affirmed and the Supreme Court refused to review his case.
While Blankenship’s conviction was not considered a felony under the United States Code, it was classified that way by the media in the coverage of his Senate campaign. Felonies are technically punishable by imprisonment of more than a year, but Blankenship’s maximum sentence was a year. If he had served even one more day, the felony classification would have been accurate under the United States Code definition.
Only months after finishing his prison sentence, Blankenship announced his run in the 2018 West Virginia Republican primary for Senate. Blankenship ran as an outsider from the Republican establishment, at times attacking the party’s Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as “Cocaine Mitch.” He was also criticized by former President Donald Trump.
After losing his primary election, Blankenship sued over 100 news organizations and journalists for defamation. The organizations included big and small publications alike such as Fox News, MSNBC, the Washington Post, NBC Universal, Roll Call and Fiscal Note. He says reporters' and commentators' characterization of him as a felon was the reason he lost his election.
Journalists who testified in the case claimed they thought Blankenship’s crime amounted to a felony because it was classified by the judge as a serious crime and he served his sentence in a federal prison.
The lower court granted summary judgment on the malice standard, which says public officials have to prove false statements were made with knowing or reckless disregard for the truth. The court found Blankenship could not prove any of the reporters intended to falsely characterize his conviction. A unanimous panel on the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Media organizations told the justices there was no need to review the court’s landmark precedents in this area, and even if they wanted to, this case would be a bad vehicle.
“In sum, New York Times is a vitally important and firmly established precedent that has been repeatedly reaffirmed by this Court at every turn,” Kevin Baine, an attorney with Williams & Connolly representing NBC, wrote. “There is no reason to reconsider it, least of all in a case arising from reporting about a candidate for public office.”
None of the other justices offered commentary on the court's denial of the petition.
Follow @KelseyReichmann
Follow @Megwiththenews
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
