## Facts

- A nonfiction book and related publicity concerning arms dealing depicted Shkëlzen Berisha as connected to the “Albanian mafia” and arms-trafficking activities.
- Berisha sued the author, publisher, and related defendants for defamation under Florida law, alleging false statements linking him to organized crime and weapons trafficking.
- The federal district court granted summary judgment for defendants after concluding Berisha was at least a limited-purpose public figure regarding reporting on Albanian arms trafficking and that he lacked clear and convincing evidence of actual malice.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding Berisha was a limited-purpose public figure and that the evidence did not permit a reasonable finding of actual malice.
- Berisha petitioned for certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to reconsider the constitutional “actual malice” requirement for public-figure defamation plaintiffs.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court should grant certiorari to reconsider or overrule the “actual malice” requirement for public-figure defamation plaintiffs established by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
2. Whether the lower courts’ use of limited-purpose public-figure status and the actual-malice standard warrants Supreme Court review in light of modern conditions and asserted historical objections.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court denied certiorari in a summary order and did not address the merits.
- The Eleventh Circuit’s judgment for defendants remained in effect.
- Justice Thomas dissented from the denial, arguing the actual-malice rule lacks support in constitutional text, history, and structure and should be reconsidered.
- Justice Gorsuch dissented from the denial, arguing the media environment and the expansion of public-figure doctrine call for reevaluation of Sullivan’s framework.

## Legal Principles

- Denial of certiorari does not decide the merits and does not change governing defamation doctrine.
- Under Sullivan and later cases, a public figure (including a limited-purpose public figure) must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published a defamatory falsehood with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth).
- Lower courts may classify a plaintiff as a limited-purpose public figure based on the plaintiff’s role or prominence in a particular public controversy, triggering the actual-malice requirement.
- Separate dissents from certiorari denial may signal disagreement with existing doctrine but have no binding legal effect.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari left intact the application of the limited-purpose public-figure and actual-malice framework to Berisha’s defamation claims, while dissenting opinions by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch urged reconsideration of Sullivan’s constitutional defamation rules.


Berisha v. Lawson, 141 S. Ct. 2424 (2021)