Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Agrees with Denying Case by Don Blankenship, Calls for Reconsideration of Defamation Law Precedent

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and former West Virginia coal executive Don Blankenship found themselves at odds in a recent case that has reignited the debate over the landmark defamation law precedent set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

In a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Blankenship, he challenged the actual malice standard established by Times v. Sullivan, arguing that it poses a threat to democracy. Blankenship claimed that his candidacy was damaged by false statements made by major media outlets, including NBCUniversal, Fox News, CNN, and The Washington Post, among others.

Specifically, Blankenship asserted that he was falsely labeled as a “convicted felon” when he had only been convicted of a misdemeanor in connection with a 2010 mine explosion that resulted in 29 deaths. He argued that the press should not have the freedom to publish falsehoods that can harm a candidate’s campaign.

While Justice Thomas concurred with the denial of certiorari in Blankenship’s case, he expressed his continued belief that the actual malice standard should be reconsidered. Thomas criticized the Supreme Court’s imposition of the elevated standard in Times v. Sullivan, stating that it was not based on the original meaning of the First Amendment.

This case highlights the ongoing debate over the balance between freedom of the press and protection against defamation, with Justice Thomas advocating for a reexamination of the current legal standard. While Blankenship’s case may not have been the right opportunity to address this issue, it raises important questions about the future of defamation law in the United States.