President Trump may want to “open up” the nation’s libel laws to make it easier for public figures to sue news organizations, but for the most part, courts have not indicated a desire to revisit the long-standing precedent of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which has been the standard for judging libel lawsuits involving public figures since 1964.

As the New York Times itself recently reported, despite repeated calls from public figure libel plaintiffs to revisit and overturn the landmark ruling, the High Court has not expressed much interest in reconsidering its longstanding precedent.

Under New York Times v. Sullivan, public figures from celebrities to politicians and government officials, can only win a lawsuit against the media for libel if they can prove “actual malice,” which is defined as knowledge the published statement was false or “reckless disregard” as to its truth or falsity. The unanimous Supreme Court in 1964 intentionally set the bar high to protect the free speech and free press rights enshrined in the First Amendment.

The High Court sometimes sends out subtle yet powerful signals as to what its take is on numerous cases by weaving them into other decisions. Recently, the Justices heard a case concerning salespeople who were entitled to overtime. In that case, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh referred to the Sullivan case in a positive manner, citing with approval the case’s heightened legal standard of “clear and convincing evidence” in libel lawsuits.

This opinion was issued in the first week after President Trump took office and could be interpreted to take at least some of the air out of Trump’s remarks on the campaign trail regarding his intention to “open up our libel laws.”

The Sullivan case set the gold standard of requiring more stringent evidence compared to a majority of civil lawsuits. The case, bound as it is to the First Amendment of the Constitution, makes it much more difficult for public figures to successfully sue for libel because free speech and freedom of the press are at play when it comes to criticizing public figures.

That hasn’t stopped public figures from repeatedly arguing that Times v. Sullivan was wrongfully decided and should be overturned, an idea that has gained traction with at least two Supreme Court Justices. As reported by the Times, Justice Clarence Thomas urged the Court numerous times in 2019 to revisit the precedent but was rebuffed. In 2021, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch weighed in, saying the landmark decision “has evolved into an ironclad subsidy for the publication of falsehoods by means and on a scale previously unimaginable.” Yet no other High Court Justices appear to have taken up that mantle, including Justice Kavanaugh who recently cited the decision favorably as discussed above.

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has long been clear that he wants to “open up” the libel laws and has spoken strongly about the issue. At a campaign rally before his first election in 2016, he said, "One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected.”

Although the Supreme Court has repeatedly supported or endorsed the Sullivan Case, President Trump said he plans to overrule the landmark case.

"You see, with me, they're not protected, because I'm not like other people but I'm not taking money. I'm not taking their money," Trump said. "We're going to open up libel laws, and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."