Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf
Page Number: 42.0

2 

COUNTERMAN v. COLORADO 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

this Court in New York Times and its progeny broke sharply 
from the common law of libel, and there are sound reasons 
to question whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments
displaced this body of common law.”  McKee, 586 U. S., at 
___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 6).  Thus, as I have 
previously noted, “[w]e should reconsider our jurisprudence
in this area.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 14); see also Berisha v. 
Lawson, 594 U. S. ___ (2021) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from
denial of certiorari).

I am far from alone.  Many Members of this Court have
questioned  the  soundness  of  New  York  Times  and  its  nu-
merous extensions.  See, e.g., Berisha, 594 U. S., at ___–___ 
(GORSUCH, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., 
at  5–8);  Coughlin  v.  Westinghouse  Broadcasting  &  Cable, 
Inc.,  476  U. S.  1187  (1986)  (Burger,  C. J.,  joined  by
Rehnquist,  J.,  dissenting  from  denial  of  certiorari);  Gertz, 
418  U. S.,  at  370  (White,  J.,  dissenting);  Rosenbloom  v. 
Metromedia, Inc., 403 U. S. 29, 62 (1971) (Harlan, J., dis-
senting); id., at 78 (Marshall, J., dissenting); Rosenblatt v. 
Baer, 383 U. S. 75, 92 (1966) (Stewart, J., concurring); see 
also E. Kagan, A Libel Story: Sullivan Then and Now, 18 L. 
& Soc. Inquiry 197, 207 (1993); J. Lewis & B. Ottley, New 
York Times v. Sullivan at 50, 64 DePaul L. Rev. 1, 35–36 
(2014) (collecting statements from Justice Scalia); cf. Tah v. 
Global  Witness  Publishing,  Inc.,  991  F. 3d  231,  251–256 
(CADC 2021) (Silberman, J., dissenting in part) (question-
ing the doctrine).  It is thus unfortunate that the majority 
chooses  not  only  to  prominently  and  uncritically  invoke 
New York Times, but also to extend its flawed, policy-driven
First Amendment analysis to true threats, a separate area
of this Court’s jurisprudence.