Clarence Thomas, who became a Supreme Court Justice despite being credibly accused of sexual harassment, has recently made it clear on at least two occasions that he wants to remove well-established libel protections by making it easier for public figures such as Donald Trump and himself to successfully sue media outlets for defamation.
This week the Supreme Court decided not to hear a defamation lawsuit filed by a Christian nonprofit group after the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled it a hate group. Thomas dissented, saying "This case is one of many showing how New York Times and its progeny have allowed media organizations and interest groups 'to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.'"
Last year Thomas dissented in another defamation case the Supreme Court declined to take. "The lack of historical support for this Court's actual-malice requirement is reason enough to take a second look at the Court's doctrine," Thomas wrote. "Our reconsideration is all the more needed because of the doctrine's real-world effects. Public figure or private, lies impose real harm."
From The Washington Post:
With his call for action on same-sex marriage and other precious American liberties, Thomas has positioned himself at the radical extreme of a Supreme Court determined to remake this country. It's fitting, then, that he stands alone this week in calling for the dismantling of a doctrine that facilitates aggressive coverage of people like Thomas himself.