`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`