WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court has directed CNN to file a response in a defamation dispute that grew out of President Donald Trump’s first Senate impeachment trial.

The order follows a petition for a writ of certiorari from the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which claims CNN allegedly aired falsehoods and distorted commentary about constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz and what he said during the 2020 proceedings.

The Court issued its instruction in mid-February 2026. It sets a response deadline in mid-to-late March. CNN had first waived its right to respond, but the justices still required a filing. Court-watchers often see this step as a signal that the Court is paying close attention, especially in cases that press on the rules for defamation claims by public figures.

Background: The 2020 Impeachment Trial and Dershowitz’s Argument

This dispute goes back to January 29, 2020. That day, Alan Dershowitz, then a Harvard Law School professor emeritus, appeared as part of Trump’s defense team in the Senate impeachment trial. During an exchange tied to foreign policy and quid pro quo claims, he laid out his view of what counts as an impeachable offense under the Constitution.

Dershowitz separated presidential motives into three broad buckets:

• Actions taken in the public interest
• Actions taken for electoral interest
• Actions tied to personal financial gain, which he described as “purely corrupt.”

He also said that personal gain would cross the line. He gave examples such as asking for a hotel named after him or seeking a million-dollar kickback in return for releasing funds. In other words, he said a president does not get a free pass for crimes. That qualifier sat at the center of his point, according to the filings.

The ACLJ says CNN and some of its commentators left out that key limiting language soon after the remarks aired. Within minutes, CNN headlines and segments allegedly framed Dershowitz as claiming that actions driven by re-election goals could not be impeachable, full stop. From there, critics on the network and online referenced what they called a “Dershowitz Doctrine,” suggesting it would excuse bribery, extortion, or other crimes if a politician said it helped their campaign.

Court filings cite examples such as:

• CNN contributor Paul Begala said the view would wipe out campaign finance laws, bribery laws, and extortion bans
• Other on-air and online statements repeating similar claims, even though the full video and transcript context was available

A federal district judge later remarked that “of course, Dershowitz said nothing of the kind,” adding that no “Dershowitz Doctrine” existed.

Dershowitz sued CNN for defamation in federal court in Florida. He argued the network intentionally twisted his words to harm his name and career. Still, lower courts dismissed the case under the long-running standard from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). That ruling requires public figures to prove “actual malice,” meaning the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

The ACLJ Takes the Fight to the Supreme Court

The ACLJ, led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, filed its certiorari petition in late December 2025. Sekulow also served on Trump’s impeachment defense team. The group argues that today’s media environment makes New York Times v. Sullivan too protective, because it can allow false claims to spread with limited consequences.

In its petition, the ACLJ asks the Court to consider whether the actual malice rule still fits modern news coverage, where edits, omissions, and hot takes can spread quickly and shape public views before corrections land, if they land at all.

Sekulow called the Supreme Court’s order a “major” step in public remarks. He said CNN tried to sit the case out by waiving a response, but the Court required one. The ACLJ also casts the dispute as part of a broader push for media accountability, especially around coverage it views as hostile to conservative positions or to lawyers defending constitutional arguments. Alongside the case, the group has promoted an online petition that it says has drawn tens of thousands of signatures.

CNN’s View and Why This Case Matters

CNN has not filed its required response yet. However, its earlier waiver suggested it saw the petition as weak. Many legal scholars point out that New York Times v. Sullivan is a core First Amendment decision. It aims to protect tough reporting and open debate about public officials, even when coverage is sharp or mistaken.

If the Supreme Court were to narrow or rework the actual malice standard, it would mark one of the biggest shifts in U.S. defamation law in decades. Supporters of change say it could discourage reckless reporting and repeat misstatements. Critics warn it could invite meritless suits, raise legal risks for journalists, and chill investigative work.

The case also puts a spotlight back on coverage of Trump’s first impeachment. That episode focused on claims that Trump pressed Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden while holding up military aid, a quid pro quo Democrats said warranted impeachment.

Dershowitz, a Democrat and longtime civil liberties advocate, has said his comments were about the legal threshold for impeachment. He maintains he was not defending misconduct.

What Comes Next

CNN’s filing will likely argue its coverage reflected a fair interpretation during a heated public debate and did not meet the actual malice bar. After CNN responds, the ACLJ will have a chance to reply.

The Supreme Court will then decide whether to grant certiorari and hear the case. If the justices take it, the matter could move to briefing and oral argument in the 2026 to 2027 term. A ruling could reshape how defamation claims work when public figures say media outlets misquote them or leave out key context.

For now, the dispute highlights the strain between press freedom and accountability, especially when political stakes run high. As one of the most-watched challenges tied to New York Times v. Sullivan in years, the outcome could affect how newsrooms cover controversial legal arguments for a long time.

Related News:

Supreme Court Hands Executive Branch a 6-3 Win on TPS Protections

LONDON – Britain’s Jeffrey Epstein files dispute has taken a sharper turn, pulling both politics and the royal family deeper into the spotlight. Now, outspoken royalists and conservative commentators are accusing Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer of pushing the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrest story to drown out questions about alleged Epstein ties connected to Starmer’s camp.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, previously known as Prince Andrew and the younger brother of King Charles III, was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The detention landed on his 66th birthday and has shaken the country. Supporters of the monarchy say it is also being used as a convenient headline shield for Downing Street.

Thames Valley Police took him into custody at the Sandringham estate in Norfolk. Officers also searched locations in Berkshire and Norfolk. After about 12 hours, the police released him under investigation. Authorities have not filed charges, but the inquiry focuses on claims that he shared sensitive government documents with Epstein while serving as a UK trade envoy.

The arrest deepens the monarchy’s crisis

Mountbatten-Windsor lost his princely title last year after the earlier Epstein fallout. He has repeatedly denied wrongdoing. However, recent Epstein file releases, including emails dated 2010 and 2011, appear to show him sending confidential trade material. The same documents also raise doubts about his past claim that he cut ties with Epstein in 2010.

Because of that, investigators are looking at possible breaches tied to official secrets and misconduct in public office.

King Charles III responded with a restrained statement. He said he felt “deepest concern” and added that “the law must take its course.” He also stressed the royal family’s commitment to public duty while the case unfolds.

Starmer’s remarks spark claims of a planned distraction

Before the arrest became public, Starmer appeared on BBC Breakfast and said “nobody is above the law” when asked about Mountbatten-Windsor. He framed it as a rule-of-law issue, while also saying police should handle the investigation without political interference.

Royalist critics did not accept that explanation. Instead, they pointed to the timing and argued the government helped steer attention toward the palace at the very moment Downing Street faced renewed Epstein questions.

They also say Starmer’s vulnerabilities in the Epstein story make the situation worse, not better.

• The Peter Mandelson appointment row: Starmer appointed Lord Mandelson, a senior Labour figure with documented Epstein links, as the UK Ambassador to the United States. After fresh reporting and new claims about the depth of Mandelson’s ties, critics inside and outside Labour attacked the pick. Some called it a serious lapse in judgment and demanded Starmer step down.
• Wider Epstein scrutiny in UK politics: In Britain, the Epstein files have driven harsher public scrutiny of establishment connections. As a result, Starmer’s leadership has come under heavier pressure than before.

One pro-monarchy commentator, who spoke anonymously, claimed the pattern is obvious: “This arrest shifts focus away from Downing Street’s Epstein embarrassments. Starmer’s quick ‘nobody is above the law’ line feels designed to keep the heat on the royals while his own side avoids hard questions.”

Starmer’s Old anti-monarchy comments

At the same time, critics have revived Starmer’s past statements about the monarchy. A 2005 clip, recorded when he worked as a human rights barrister, shows him joking about becoming Queen’s Counsel. He said it was “odd” because he had often supported abolishing the monarchy.

That comment has become fresh fuel for conservative outlets and royalist campaigners. They say it points to long-standing republican instincts, even if Starmer later softened his public stance.

• During the 2020 Labour leadership debates, he backed reducing the monarchy’s size rather than ending it.
• Since becoming Prime Minister, he has publicly expressed loyalty to the Crown. Still, critics argue his handling of the current scandal suggests old hostility is still there.

Across social media and in parts of the conservative press, some supporters of the monarchy now describe the heavy focus on the arrest as a “republican ploy” aimed at weakening the institution.

Resignation pressure builds

With the Epstein files still driving headlines, Starmer faces mounting demands to address Mandelson’s role and explain whether anyone in his administration has indirect links to Epstein. Opposition figures have pressed the issue, and some Labour MPs have also pushed for clearer answers.

Royalist groups say the Prime Minister is acting in his own interest, not in a neutral spirit. They argue he is tough on royal wrongdoing while protecting political allies from equal scrutiny.

At the same time, Starmer’s supporters say the criticism is unfair. In their view, his comments simply reinforce the rule of law and avoid meddling in an active police investigation.

For now, the Epstein files continue to spread damage across borders and across institutions. In the UK, the collision of a royal arrest and political fallout has created a volatile moment. Mountbatten-Windsor remains under investigation, and the public fight over motive and timing shows no sign of easing.

In the weeks ahead, Starmer will have to contain the pressure or watch resignation calls grow louder. Meanwhile, the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has become a defining flashpoint, setting the monarchy’s defenders against a government they say is using the crisis for political cover.

Trending News:

Megyn Kelly Slams Hillary Clinton For “Extraordinary Hypocrisy”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Donald Trump has directed a complete pullout of about 1,000 US troops from Syria within two months. The White House points to a reduced ISIS threat and a larger counterterror role for the Syrian government. At the same time, the administration is sending more US naval and air power into the Middle East to pressure Iran.

Multiple outlets, including Sky News Australia, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and Reuters, reported the decision. It closes out a US mission that began about a decade ago as part of the campaign against the Islamic State (ISIS).

This order follows a steady drawdown over recent months. For example, US forces have recently left key sites such as al-Tanf in southeastern Syria near the Jordan and Iraq borders, and al-Shaddadi in the northeast. In addition, several positions have already shifted to Syrian government control, which signals a planned handoff.

Key details on the Syria withdrawal

• Troop levels and schedule: About 1,000 US personnel are expected to leave within two months, ending the remaining US presence.
• How the mission began: The US entered Syria in 2014 under the Obama administration. It later expanded under Trump’s first term, including cooperation with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) against ISIS control.
• Why the administration says it’s leaving: Trump officials point to improved security, a weakened ISIS threat, and the Syrian government’s increased willingness to lead counterterror work inside Syria. One senior official said the United States no longer needs a large on-the-ground footprint. Still, officials say the US can respond from outside Syria if terrorist threats return.
• A shift consistent with Trump’s past stance: Trump has long argued that extended ground deployments cost too much and bring limited returns. Earlier pullback efforts in 2018 and 2019 ran into internal pushback and ended in partial moves. This time, the administration appears to be moving forward without the same obstacles.

Officials describe the withdrawal as conditions-based and say it is not tied to other events in the region. Even so, it arrives as tensions rise elsewhere in the Middle East, especially around Iran.

Trump builds a larger military posture aimed at Iran

While reducing US ground forces in Syria, the Trump administration is boosting American naval and air power across the Middle East. The buildup comes as the US watches Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missile work, and support for regional proxy groups.

According to reports from The New York Times, New York Post, BBC, Reuters, and CNN, the posture includes:

• Another aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, is moving into the region, joining or nearing the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group already operating in the Arabian Sea or Gulf area.
• Dozens of fighter aircraft are heading forward, including F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters, F-22 Raptors, F-16s, and others, shifting from US bases to sites in Europe and the Middle East.
• Support forces such as aerial refueling tankers, guided-missile destroyers, and other warships, building a force that can sustain operations.

This increase comes as indirect talks with Iran continue through third-party channels, including Oman, aimed at a new nuclear agreement. Trump has called for tight limits on Iran’s uranium enrichment and related activity.

He has also warned that a failure to reach a deal could lead to military action. Administration sources say the force posture keeps options open, including strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, missile sites, or Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) targets if talks break down.

The USS Gerald R. Ford can carry more than 75 aircraft, including F-35C variants, which increases carrier strike capacity. At the same time, USS Abraham Lincoln’s air wing includes F-35s, F/A-18 Super Hornets, and electronic warfare aircraft. Together, the groups give the US strong air-power choices in the theater.

What this could mean for the region and US policy

The approach is two-tracked. The US is leaving Syria, while also building pressure on Iran. This matches Trump’s America First message, with fewer long-term ground missions but a heavy force where the administration sees core risks.

Possible effects include:

• Inside Syria: Turning sites over to Syrian forces under interim leadership may support domestic efforts against ISIS. However, it also raises concerns about Kurdish partners and the chance of new gaps in control.
• Counterterrorism going forward: US officials say they will rely on over-the-horizon tools, including intelligence support and drone strikes, to help prevent an ISIS comeback.
• Iran tensions: The military buildup may strengthen the US hand in talks. At the same time, it can increase the risk of mistakes or escalation, with Iran reportedly preparing for possible US or joint US-Israeli strikes.
• Across the Middle East: Some allies, including Israel and Gulf states, may welcome a stronger Iran-focused posture. Critics, however, warn that it could pull the US deeper into regional conflict again.

The Syria withdrawal tracks with a familiar Trump promise to bring troops home and point to progress against ISIS. Yet the parallel buildup aimed at Iran shows the administration’s narrower focus. It is stepping away from long-term ground commitments, while keeping strong air and sea power ready for threats tied to Tehran.

Over the next two months, the shift will become clearer on the ground. For now, the message from the White House is straightforward: a lighter footprint in Syria, and a heavier presence at sea and in the air where the administration sees the biggest risks.

Related News:

New Report Gives Trump an Economic Win as Inflation Cools to 2.4%