Berisha v. Lawson, 20-1063

Background

Guy Lawson published a non‑fiction book recounting Miami arms‑trafficking episodes that identified Shkelzen Berisha as a member of the "Albanian mafia." Berisha sued Lawson in Florida for defamation.
Berisha alleged Lawson recklessly relied on weak sources and falsely portrayed him as a dangerous criminal.
The district court granted summary judgment for Lawson on the ground that Berisha was a public figure and therefore had to prove "actual malice" (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard) under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, and had not met that standard.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the summary judgment.
Berisha petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari; the Court denied review. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch dissented from the denial and urged reconsideration of the Court’s actual‑malice/public‑figure doctrine in light of history and changes in the modern media landscape.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of the "actual malice" standard to public figures	Berisha: the actual‑malice requirement is unjustified and shields falsehoods; public figures should not be barred from ordinary libel remedies	Lawson: Sullivan requires public figures to prove actual malice; Berisha is a public figure so the heightened standard applies	Supreme Court denied certiorari; lower courts applied Sullivan and required actual malice and found it not proven
Whether Berisha is a public figure	Berisha: he did not voluntarily seek public attention and should not be treated as a public figure for these allegations	Lawson: Berisha was sufficiently involved in matters and publicity that made him a public or limited‑purpose public figure for the weapons‑trafficking story	Lower courts held Berisha was a public figure (or at least for the relevant story) and applied the actual‑malice standard
Whether Berisha proved actual malice	Berisha: Lawson acted recklessly in relying on flimsy sources and thus met the standard	Lawson: no clear and convincing evidence of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard; investigation was sufficient	Eleventh Circuit held Berisha failed to prove actual malice; summary judgment for Lawson affirmed
Whether the Supreme Court should revisit Sullivan and its progeny	Berisha / dissents: Sullivan lacks historical support, its extensions improperly limit libel remedies, and modern media changes make the rule harmful; Court should reconsider the doctrine	Implicit counter: Sullivan protects robust debate and prevents chilling speech; precedents stand	Court denied certiorari; Justices Thomas and Gorsuch dissented, arguing for reconsideration of Sullivan and the public‑figure/actual‑malice framework

Key Cases Cited

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (establishes "actual malice" standard for defamation of public officials)
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (extends and refines public‑figure doctrine and liability rules)
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (applies actual‑malice principle beyond public officials)
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (discusses scope and limits of First Amendment protection in defamation law)
Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (broad view of press freedom as encompassing many publication forms)
Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (survey of historical defamation law principles)
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29 (consideration of public‑figure concepts in defamation contexts)
Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75 (discusses public official/figure distinctions in libel law)