The Supreme Court says it won’t consider rewriting defamation law... yet

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the Supreme Court's refusal to revisit a libel ruling. The court denied the petition to hear the case this morning.

The Supreme Court would have increased the chances of public figures winning libel cases if it had overturned the ruling. The decision will likely delay the push to expand the scope of defamation law.

In order to win a defamation case, public figures must prove that a false statement was made knowingly or recklessly. The SPLC didn't act with malice when it added Coral Ridge Ministries to its hate map. The Supreme Court's ruling in New York Times Co. was asked to be reexamined by Coral Ridge ministries.

The original precedent is unaffected by the court's decision. Thomas said he would have taken the case. He called the case one of many that indicated NYT v. Sullivan had allowed media to "cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity."

The court has been urged by Thomas to narrow speech protections beyond libel. He said in an opinion last year that the government should regulate moderation on social media websites. He wants to revisit earlier cases. He urged the court to revisit decisions that protected contraceptive access and same-sex marriage. The justice is not the only one who doubts the standard. Justice Elena Kagan wrote a 1993 book review that criticized the New York Times, but she hasn't signed onto any of Thomas' opinions.

Even though the standard was overturned, a lower court didn't think the inclusion on the "hate map" was a true factual statement. It could have changed the balance of power in US libel cases, making it much easier for powerful figures like former president Donald Trump to win lawsuits. It is not the last case that will reach the Supreme Court.