Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. S. Poverty Law Ctr.

142 S.Ct. 2453 (Mem)

CORAL RIDGE MINISTRIES MEDIA, INC., dba D. James Kennedy Ministries

v.SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER

No. 21-802

Supreme Court of the United States.

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 available media." 406 F.Supp.3d 1258, 1268 (M.D. Ala. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). In 2017, Coral Ridge applied to receive donations through AmazonSmile, a program that allows Amazon customers to contribute to approved 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. Amazon.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 SPLC was aware that it was not a "hate group," but falsely labeled it one anyway to "destroy the Ministry" by "dissuad[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 defense: 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 meaning." Id., at 1277. Additionally, the court held that Coral Ridge had not plausibly alleged that SPLC acted with "actual malice," as defined by this Court's decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254, 280, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). See 406 F.Supp.3d, at 1278–1280.

The Court of Appeals affirmed but rested its decision exclusively on the "actual malice" standard. See 6 F.4th 1247, 1251–1253 (C.A.11 2021). While a defamed person must typically prove only "a false written publication that subjected him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule," McKee v. Cosby , 586 U. S. ––––, ––––, 139 S.Ct. 675, 678, 203 L.Ed.2d 247 (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring in denial of certiorari) (internal quotation marks omitted), a "public figure" laboring under the "actual malice" standard must prove that a defamatory statement was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not," New York Times , 376 U.S., at 280, 84 S.Ct. 710. 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 reason to doubt the truth of its "hate group" designation. See 6 F.4th, at 1252–1253.

Coral Ridge now asks us to reconsider the "actual malice" standard. As I have said previously, "we should."

Berisha v. Lawson , 594 U. S. ––––, ––––, 141 S.Ct. 2424, 2424–2425, 210 L.Ed.2d 991 (2021) (opinion dissenting from denial of certiorari). " New York Times and the Court's decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law." McKee , 586 U. S., at ––––, 139 S.Ct.. at 676 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). 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 (C.A.D.C. 2021) (Silberman, J., dissenting in part). This Court has never demonstrated otherwise. 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 ––––, ...