The United States used to set the standard for press freedom. Now, it’s dropped its status as a worldwide leader, according to Reporters Without Borders.

President Donald Trump has spearheaded a historic attack on press freedom in the United States, filing three lawsuits against news companies such as ABC, CBS, and the Des Moines Register in the past few months alone. The president’s litigious approach to the press challenges long-standing legal protection for journalists under a landmark Supreme Court case from 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan.

The ruling originally protected The New York Times against expensive defamation lawsuits brought by southern government officials during the Civil Rights Movement. Since then, the case has become a crucial precedent for press freedom. It has served to protect journalists who speak truth to power, and has allowed news organizations to publish landmark stories, like the Washington Post’s Watergate investigation, as well as reporting on corporate malfeasance by tobacco and petrochemical companies among others, without fear of reprisal.

In the first installment of “Press in Peril,” an ACLU blog series on free press, we explore arguably the most important case for press freedom.

New York Times v. Sullivan stems from an advertisement that ran in The New York Times during the Civil Rights Movement. Sponsored by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King, the advertisement accused officials in Montogomery, Alabama and other southern states of inflicting violence on civil rights protestors. The advertisement contained several factual inaccuracies irrelevant to the substance of the accusations, including incorrect names of songs protestors had sung on Alabama’s capitol steps and the false claim that Montgomery officials had padlocked the dining hall of Alabama State College.

Public officials in Alabama did not take kindly to the advertisement's criticism. Although the advertisement did not mention any officials by name, the commissioner of the Montgomery Police Department, L.B. Sullivan, sued The New York Times for damages, claiming that the advertisement defamed, or made false statements against, him and other Montogomery officials. Alabama court ruled that The New York Times was at fault, ordering the paper to pay $500,000 to Sullivan.

In mid-century America, defamation cases against the press were not uncommon. Public officials in the South often used such cases strategically against the press to damage reputations and silence criticism. As news outlets sent reporters to cover civil rights protests, they often faced hostility, physical attacks, civil libel suits, and even criminal libel prosecutions for their reporting.

Apart from Sullivan, more than 10 other Alabama officials sued The New York Times for defamation stemming from the same advertisement. As a result, The New York Times faced millions of dollars in expected damages. Considering the newspaper’s small presence in the South and the threat of bankruptcy if they had to pay such high damages, the newspaper ordered all of its reporters to leave Alabama until the suit was settled. Fearing the same fate as the New York Times, other outlets contemplated doing the same.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of The New York Times in 1964. The court reasoned that Sullivan’s status as a public official required a new standard of review to avoid censorship of the press when covering stories of public interest.

Before this historic ruling, state law largely governed defamation cases. But the Supreme Court held that, to provide breathing space for true speech and ensure that public debate remains uninhibited, the First Amendment protects reporting on public officials and public figures even when it contains inaccuracies. The Supreme Court held that defamation liability could be imposed only when the speaker knows the speech is false or intentionally disregarded a high risk of material inaccuracy. This became known as the actual malice standard. As the Supreme Court recognized, if powerful people could sue the media every time they made a mistake or said something critical, a robust media landscape would cease to exist. Most outlets cannot afford lengthy litigation or damages, and the high price would scare them away from investigative or critical reporting.

By requiring public officials and public figures to prove actual malice, the ruling made it harder to punish newspapers for good faith reporting on controversial issues. This emboldened a new generation of journalists, who could now investigate public officials across the country without fear of retaliation for their reporting.

Sullivan established robust First Amendment protections for speech about public officials, leaving speech about powerful and prominent individuals outside of government vulnerable to defamation suits.

The Supreme Court addressed this discrepancy and created a broader category of “public figures” in 1967 to include people with a role of prominence, fame, or notoriety in society. Since

then, courts have applied the actual malice standard to defamation cases against media outlets brought by A-list celebrities, corporate leaders, and activists. For example, rapper Drake sued Universal Music Group in January, alleging the song “Not Like Us” by Kendrick Lamar defamed Drake — but as a public figure, he will need to prove actual malice, a high legal bar, to win.

Although deeply embedded in American culture, Sullivan has still generated controversy. In 2021, Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch made headlines when they wrote separate dissents to the majority’s decision not to hear a defamation case, Berisha v. Lawson. The case surrounded a defamation lawsuit filed by Shkelzen Berisha, son of a well-known Albanian politician, against the author of “Arms and Dudes,” a book that was popularized by the 2016 film “War Dogs.” Berisha alleged the author falsely associated him with the Albanian mafia.

Disagreeing with the lower courts’ application of Sullivan and the precedent as a whole, Thomas and Gorsuch called for the case to be reviewed and overturned. By calling for Sullivan to be reviewed, Thomas and Gorsuch challenged decades of precedent and alarmed journalists and First Amendment experts across the country.

In his latest attack against the press, Trump is now testing the limits of defamation law by suing media organizations such as ABC, CBS, and more

Trump sued ABC and anchor George Stephanopoulos for stating on-air that Trump was liable for rape, arguing that he had instead been found liable for sexual abuse. ABC News and Stephanopoulos reached a settlement for 15 million dollars and an issuance of an editor’s note of regret rather than going to trial.

Despite recent challenges in the Supreme Court and by the current presidential administration, New York Times v. Sullivan remains a bedrock case for freedom of the press in the United States 60 years later. The higher standard that applies to public officials and public figures remains essential to the First Amendment, keeping speech on matters of public concern uninhibited and enabling the press to seek truth to the best of their ability. The actual malice standard is particularly crucial as a new wave of independent journalists, most of whom lack funds for legal defense, call out public officials online and pursue stories that shine a light on government abuses of power.

The ACLU is committed to fighting for reporters’ right to hold those in power accountable. Through “Press in Peril,” our ongoing series, we’re highlighting the challenges facing the press in a democracy under pressure.

This week at the ACLU of Maine: A victory in our First Amendment case against the Trump administration, a look back on the 2025 legislative session, Know Your Rights while protesting, events, and more!

A victory in our First Amendment case, Smith v. Trump

Earlier this year, we filed a lawsuit challenging the president's executive order imposing sanctions on people who cooperate with the International Criminal Court (ICC). The sanctions violate the First Amendment by prohibiting the advocates, and other Americans like them, from communicating with the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor, including by providing legal advice, expert analysis, and evidence. Our clients, Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan, are suing because the sanctions forced them to stop working with the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor and indefinitely paused their efforts to hold leading rights violators accountable for horrific crimes.

On Friday afternoon, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the order. The First Amendment does not allow the government to impose sweeping limits on what Americans can say and who they can say it to.

Read more here

Looking Back on a Busy and Productive 2025 Legislative Session

The 2025 State Legislature has wrapped its session for the year.

Our policy team spent hundreds of hours at the State House testifying on bills, meeting with lawmakers, and building coalitions with our partners. This year’s work unfolded against a backdrop of growing political instability and a shifting legal landscape, where the ACLU of Maine and our allies fought hard to protect civil liberties across six key priorities: the right to a fair trial, data privacy, due process, bodily autonomy, free speech, and voting rights.

Our 2025 Legislative Report highlights this year’s hard-won victories—and the challenges that still lie ahead.

Read the full recap here

Save the Date: Join Us For a Live Legislative Recap on July 30!

Want to hear more about the legislative session straight from our experts? You’re in luck! Join our policy team for a live webinar on Wednesday, July 30, from 7–8 p.m. Policy Director Michael Kebede and Policy Fellow Alicia Rea will break down the highlights of this year’s session, share what’s ahead for next year, and answer your questions.

If you're interested, please learn more and register for the event below. We hope to see you there!

Know Your Rights While Protesting

The ACLU of Maine took part in two events this week: Good Trouble Lives on in Brunswick, and Disability Pride in Augusta. It was great to be in solidarity with communities around Maine as they exercised their freedom of speech and expression, and rallied for civil rights and liberties. 

Remember: Rallies and protests are fundemental part of our First Amendment rights in this country. At a time when so many civil rights are under attack, it’s more important than ever to be informed and prepared. Before you attend your next rally, be sure to check out our Know Your Rights While Protesting resources. 

And be sure to check out our events page to see where you can find us next!