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”

LONDON –  Reports say Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, previously known as Prince Andrew, Duke of York, was arrested on Thursday, February 19, 2026, on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

The detention happened on his 66th birthday. He later left custody and was released under investigation after several hours, but the news has renewed focus on his long-running connections to the late Jeffrey Epstein.

According to coverage tied to newly released Epstein records from US authorities, the material has stirred up fresh scrutiny of Mountbatten-Windsor’s contact with Epstein. That attention centers on the years he served as the United Kingdom’s special trade representative from 2001 to 2011.

Thames Valley Police confirmed a detention in a short statement. At first, officers described the suspect as “a man in his sixties from Norfolk” and did not name him, which follows common UK practice.

Reports say police arrested him around 8:00 AM GMT at a residence on the King’s Sandringham Estate in Norfolk. Officers also carried out searches at locations in Berkshire and Norfolk as part of the ongoing inquiry.

The suspected offense, misconduct in public office, is a serious common-law allegation in the UK. If a court convicts someone, the maximum sentence can reach life in prison. In general, the offense involves a public official misusing their role, acting for personal benefit, harming others, or damaging public trust.

Multiple outlets, including the BBC, AP News, and NBC News, have reported that investigators are looking at claims Mountbatten-Windsor may have passed confidential government papers or sensitive information to Epstein during his trade role. That period included overseas work promoting British business, alongside trips later linked in reporting to Epstein’s circle.

After about 11 hours, reports say police released Mountbatten-Windsor “under investigation.” In practice, that means no formal charges have been filed, and the case remains open. Photographers captured him leaving Aylsham Police Station in Norfolk, and commentators quickly framed the image as one likely to shape public reaction.

Buckingham Palace response

Buckingham Palace released a short statement soon after reports of the arrest: “The King is aware of the developments and believes the law must take its course. His Majesty respects the independence of the police investigation and will not comment further while matters are ongoing.”

King Charles III has kept his distance from the controversy in recent years. In 2022, he stripped his brother of royal titles and military roles after civil allegations tied to Epstein associate Virginia Giuffre. Palace sources also stressed that the statement reflects the family’s focus on neutrality while it tries to rebuild public trust.

Royal supporters, critics, and online reaction

Public reaction has split sharply, including among royal fans.

• Some loyalists voiced anger and disbelief online, and hashtags such as #FreeAndrew and #RoyalWitchHunt briefly trended.
• Others called the detention politically driven, pointing to the timing during wider political disputes.
• At the same time, many supporters said the past ties to Epstein have hurt the monarchy’s standing and called for full transparency.

Across royal news sites and forums, the divide looks clear. Hardline supporters insist he’s being targeted, while more moderate voices want him to cooperate fully to resolve the claims.

What this could mean for the monarchy

The reported arrest adds pressure to the House of Windsor at a difficult time. The family has faced years of reputational strain, health concerns among senior royals, and growing debate about the monarchy’s role.

• Damage to reputation: If a senior royal faces police action, critics say it strengthens claims that privilege can hide misconduct, or that it shouldn’t.
• Family pressure: King Charles may face sharper questions about protecting the institution while dealing with a close relative. Prince William and other working royals could also feel pressure to create distance.
• Public opinion: Polling in recent years has suggested weaker support among younger people. This story could deepen that trend, especially if it drags on.

Commentators have said the monarchy’s next steps will matter. A clear outcome could limit the fallout, while criminal charges would create a historic crisis.

Royalist claims about Keir Starmer and political motives

Among some royalists and right-leaning commentators, another argument has spread quickly. They claim Prime Minister Keir Starmer has tried to benefit from the moment, or that the arrest helps shift attention away from his own problems.

Supporters of this viewpoint point to the Labour government facing scrutiny over Epstein-related links, including the fallout around former ambassador Peter Mandelson. Reports say Mandelson lost his role after disclosures about continued ties to Epstein after Epstein’s conviction, which then triggered resignations and tough questioning.

Royalists also cite older comments from Starmer about the monarchy. A 2005 clip has circulated in which he said: “I got made a Queen’s Counsel, which is odd since I often used to propose the abolition of the monarchy.” Critics say that line shows a lasting bias, even though he has since voiced public support for the monarchy as Prime Minister.

• Some online voices argue the timing lines up with renewed Epstein file coverage and scrutiny of Starmer’s record during his time as Director of Public Prosecutions.
• Others say the attention on a high-profile royal conveniently eases pressure on the government over appointments and past controversies.
• Still, no public evidence has shown direct government involvement, and police investigations operate independently.

Starmer has also taken a clear public line on the broader Epstein scandal, saying “nobody is above the law,” and calling for full cooperation from anyone involved, including Mountbatten-Windsor.

What happens next

This case highlights how Epstein’s crimes continue to reach into powerful circles. For Mountbatten-Windsor, who has remained out of public duties since a 2022 civil settlement and the loss of titles, the stakes are high. If prosecutors approve charges later, he could face trial and deeper isolation.

For the monarchy, the months ahead may be just as hard. With the investigation ongoing, speculation continues about possible US requests, testimony issues, or renewed pressure from anti-monarchy campaigners.

Either way, the reported image of a former prince in police custody has already changed the story around modern royalty and public accountability.

Related News:

Hillary Clinton Labelled a Psychopath After Denying Epstein Links