throbber

`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
` Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022)
`
` THOMAS, J., dissenting
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`CORAL RIDGE MINISTRIES MEDIA, INC., DBA D.
`JAMES KENNEDY MINISTRIES v. SOUTHERN
`
`POVERTY LAW CENTER
`
`ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
`
`STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`No. 21–802. Decided June 27, 2022
`
`
`The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
`JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.
`Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc., is a Christian non-
`
`profit dedicated to spreading the “Gospel of Jesus Christ”
`and “a biblically informed view of the world, using all avail-
`able media.” 406 F. Supp. 3d 1258, 1268 (MD Ala. 2019)
`(internal quotation marks omitted). In 2017, Coral Ridge
`
`applied to receive donations through AmazonSmile, a pro-
`gram that allows Amazon customers to contribute to ap-
`proved nonprofits. To its dismay, Coral Ridge learned it
`was ineligible for the program. The Southern Poverty Law
`Center (SPLC) had designated Coral Ridge an “Anti-LGBT
`hate group” because of its biblical views concerning human
`
`sexuality and marriage. Id., at 1270 (internal quotation
`
`marks omitted). AmazonSmile excluded Coral Ridge based
`
`on SPLC’s “hate group” designation.
`Objecting to that designation, Coral Ridge sued SPLC for
`
`defamation under Alabama law. Coral Ridge maintained
`
`that although it “opposes homosexual conduct” based on its
`
`religious beliefs, it is in no sense a “hate group.” Amended
`
`Complaint in Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Ama-
`zon.com, Inc., No. 2:17–cv–566 (MD Ala., Oct. 18, 2017),
`
`ECF Doc. 40, p. 13. To the contrary, it “has nothing but love
`for people who engage in homosexual conduct” and “has
`
`never attacked or maligned anyone on the basis of engaging
`in homosexual conduct.” Ibid. Coral Ridge alleged that
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` CORAL RIDGE MINISTRIES MEDIA, INC. v. SOUTHERN
`
` POVERTY LAW CENTER
` THOMAS, J., dissenting
`
`
`SPLC was aware that it was not a “hate group,” but falsely
`labeled it one anyway to “destroy the Ministry” by “dis-
`
`suad[ing] people and organizations from donating to [it].”
`Id., at 19.
`
`
`SPLC responded that its “hate group” designation was
`
`protected by the First Amendment. The District Court
`agreed and dismissed Coral Ridge’s complaint for failure to
`
`
`state a claim. Because Coral Ridge conceded that it was a
`“‘public figure,’” the court observed that Coral Ridge had to
`
`prove three elements to rebut SPLC’s First Amendment de-
`fense: the “‘hate group’” designation had to be (1) provably
`false, (2) actually false, and (3) made with “‘actual malice.’”
`
`406 F. Supp. 3d, at 1270. The court concluded that SPLC’s
`“hate group” designation was not provably false because
`“‘hate group’ has a highly debatable and ambiguous mean-
`ing.” Id., at 1277. Additionally, the court held that Coral
`Ridge had not plausibly alleged that SPLC acted with “ac-
`tual malice,” as defined by this Court’s decision in New York
`
`
`Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 280 (1964). See 406
`F. Supp. 3d, at 1278–1280.
`
`The Court of Appeals affirmed but rested its decision ex-
`
`clusively on the “actual malice” standard. See 6 F. 4th
`
`1247, 1251–1253 (CA11 2021). While a defamed person
`must typically prove only “a false written publication that
`
`subjected him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule,” McKee v.
`Crosby, 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring in
`
`denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 6) (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted), a “public figure” laboring under the “actual mal-
`ice” standard must prove that a defamatory statement was
`
`made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless dis-
`regard of whether it was false or not,” New York Times, 376
`U. S., at 280. Applying that “actual malice” standard, the
`
`Court of Appeals agreed that Coral Ridge’s complaint had
`not sufficiently alleged that SPLC doubted or had good rea-
`son to doubt the truth of its “hate group” designation. See
`
`6 F. 4th, at 1252–1253.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`3
`
`
`
` Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022)
`
` THOMAS, J., dissenting
`
`
`Coral Ridge now asks us to reconsider the “actual malice”
`
`
`standard. As I have said previously, “we should.” Berisha
`v. Lawson, 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (opinion dissenting
`
`
`from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 2). “New York Times
`
`and the Court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven
`decisions masquerading as constitutional law.” McKee, 586
`U. S., at ___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 2). Those
`decisions have “no relation to the text, history, or structure
`
`
`of the Constitution.” Tah v. Global Witness Publishing,
`
`Inc., 991 F. 3d 231, 251 (CADC 2021) (Silberman, J., dis-
`
`senting in part). This Court has never demonstrated other-
`wise. In fact, we have never even inquired whether “the
`First or Fourteenth Amendment, as originally understood,
`encompasses an actual-malice standard.” McKee, 586 U. S.,
`
`at ___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 10).
`
`I would grant certiorari in this case to revisit the “actual
`
`
`malice” standard. This case is one of many showing how
`New York Times and its progeny have allowed media organ-
`izations and interest groups “to cast false aspersions on
`
`public figures with near impunity.” Tah, 991 F. 3d, at 254
`
`(opinion of Silberman, J.). SPLC’s “hate group” designation
`
`lumped Coral Ridge’s Christian ministry with groups like
`
`the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis. It placed Coral Ridge on
`
`an interactive, online “Hate Map” and caused Coral Ridge
`
`concrete financial injury by excluding it from the Ama-
`zonSmile donation program. Nonetheless, unable to satisfy
`the “almost impossible” actual-malice standard this Court
`has imposed, Coral Ridge could not hold SPLC to account
`for what it maintains is a blatant falsehood. Dun & Brad-
`
`street, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U. S. 749, 771
`(1985) (White, J., concurring in judgment).
`Because the Court should not “insulate those who perpe-
`
`trate lies from traditional remedies like libel suits” unless
`“the First Amendment requires” us to do so, Berisha, 594
`
`
`U. S., at ___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 3), I re-
`spectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket