McKee v. Cosby

Background

Kathrine McKee publicly accused actor Bill Cosby of a decades-old sexual assault, and she says a letter from Cosby’s lawyer was leaked that falsely described her background. McKee sued for defamation under state law, but the case was dismissed after a federal appeals court concluded she had placed herself at the center of a public controversy and therefore was a limited-purpose public figure.

Reasoning

The appeals court applied the Court’s existing rule that public figures can recover only if they prove statements were made with "actual malice" — knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth — and McKee could not meet that high standard. The Supreme Court declined to review the case. Justice Thomas joined the denial but wrote separately to explain that the Court’s modern defamation rules were policy choices, not grounded in the original meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and that the Court should reconsider them in a future case.

Real world impact

For now, the lower-court outcome stands and McKee cannot recover under the actual-malice standard. Justice Thomas’s opinion signals a push to return more control over defamation law to state courts and legislatures, which could make it easier for people to obtain damages for false statements if the high Court later changes its precedents. The current decision is procedural, not a final ruling on the Constitutionality of the rule.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas’s separate opinion argues at length that New York Times v. Sullivan and related cases created a judge-made federal rule and that historical practice did not require the actual-malice standard.