Justice Thomas Speaks Out Alone Against Landmark Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court rejects an appeal from a former GOP presidential candidate.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sits during a group photograph of the justices at the Supreme Court in Washington on April 23, 2021. Erin Schaff/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal from Don Blankenship, a former coal company CEO who ran for president in 2020, after he argued that major news outlets defamed him, while Justice Clarence Thomas argued that a landmark defamation ruling should be revisited.

A lower court ruled against Mr. Blankenship, the former chief executive of Massey Energy, after he served a year in prison on a misdemeanor charge following a West Virginia coal mine explosion that left 29 people dead in 2010. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s determination that CNN, Fox News, and 14 other outlets sued by the former CEO did not act with “actual malice” amid coverage of his unsuccessful 2018 U.S. Senate campaign, even if they failed to meet journalistic standards.

The Supreme Court left that ruling intact on Tuesday. Justice Thomas, who agreed with the lower court ruling, called on the high court to overturn the landmark 1964 ruling in the New York Times v. Sullivan.

That ruling established the “actual malice” standard, which found that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or a candidate for public office, they have to prove that a statement was made with “actual malice,” which means the defendant knew the statement was not true or had recklessly disregarded whether it might be false or not.

The Supreme Court had previously turned away Mr. Blankenship’s appeal of his misdemeanor conviction in connection to the 2010 mine explosion.

In a comment posted on social media last month, Mr. Blankenship that his “lawsuit seeks to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan, an infamous Court ruling which legalized the defamation of candidates for public office upon the request of current government officials to do so.”

“The point of the lawsuit is that the Press cannot be allowed to remain a Fourth Branch of government that spreads propaganda and hides government corruption,” he wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “We caught the government and the Press red-handed in a worse than Watergate scandal. We have provided the Court clear proof not only of defamation but also of election sabotage.”

In his petition to the Supreme Court, Mr. Blankenship took umbrage with how MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, and other outlets described him as a “felon” and said they defamed him. He was never charged or convicted of a felony, but instead, the former executive was convicted by a jury in 2015 of a federal conspiracy charge that was classified as a misdemeanor.

U.S. Senate Republican primary candidate Don Blankenship addresses supporters following a poor showing in the polls, in Charleston, West Virginia on May 8, 2018. Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

Mr. Blankenship ran for the West Virginia U.S. Senate seat in 2018 before losing to GOP nominee Patrick Morrisey in the primary. Mr. Morrisey, who is now the state’s attorney general, ultimately lost to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who had been seeking reelection.

About two years later, Mr. Blankenship launched his campaign for the Constitution Party nomination in the 2020 presidential election. He received about 60,000 votes in all.

Justice Thomas’s Response

Justice Thomas, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush, has previously stated that the Supreme Court should overturn the landmark 1964 ruling. He reiterated his stance again on Tuesday, writing a brief opinion that “I continue to adhere to my view that we should reconsider the actual malice standard.”

“The Court usurped control over libel law and imposed its own elevated standard in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,” he wrote, adding that the court “did not base this ‘actual malice’ rule in the original meaning of the First Amendment. It limited its analysis of the historical record to a loose inference from opposition surrounding the Sedition Act of 1798.”

However, he wrote that while Mr. Blankenship “asks us to revisit New York Times,“ he agrees with the Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday ”not to take up that question in this case because it appears that Blankenship’s claims are independently subject to an actual-malice standard as a matter of state law.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch has previously called for reconsidering New York Times v. Sullivan, while Justice Elina Kagan has criticized the ruling as well in prior public comments. However, it was only Justice Thomas who issued an opinion Tuesday.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.