Trump to Ask Supreme Court to Revive CNN Lawsuit Over Phrase ‘Big Lie’
President Donald Trump plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to revive his defamation lawsuit against CNN over the network’s repeated use of the phrase “Big Lie” in coverage of his 2020 election claims.
The move comes after lower courts dismissed the $475 million suit. Trump’s legal team recently requested a 60-day extension to file a formal petition for review, pushing the deadline to August 15, 2026. The request was docketed by the Supreme Court earlier this month.
Background of the Lawsuit
Trump filed the defamation case in 2022 in Florida federal court. He accused CNN of smearing him by routinely describing his assertions that the 2020 presidential election was stolen through widespread voter fraud as “the Big Lie.”
The phrase, originally associated with Nazi propaganda tactics, was widely used by media outlets and Democrats to characterize Trump’s post-election challenges. Trump’s lawsuit claimed the term falsely implied he was deliberately spreading a known falsehood comparable to historical lies that led to catastrophic events.
A federal judge dismissed the case in 2023, and an appeals court upheld the dismissal. The courts ruled that CNN’s use of the phrase constituted protected opinion and commentary on matters of significant public concern rather than verifiable false statements of fact.
Trump’s Argument for Revival
Trump’s team argues that the lower courts applied defamation standards too broadly in favor of the media. They contend that CNN’s consistent framing went beyond fair commentary and amounted to a deliberate effort to damage his reputation by linking his election challenges to dangerous historical precedents.
Supporters of the lawsuit view it as part of a larger pushback against what they see as biased media coverage that treated Trump’s claims as inherently false without sufficient scrutiny of election integrity issues raised at the time.
CNN’s Position and Legal Context
CNN has defended its reporting as accurate journalism on a matter of intense public interest. The network and its attorneys have argued that describing Trump’s election narrative as “the Big Lie” reflected a widely held view among experts, officials, and courts that rejected his fraud claims.
Under longstanding Supreme Court precedent from New York Times v. Sullivan, public figures like Trump must prove “actual malice” — that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth — to win a defamation case. Lower courts found that standard was not met here.
Legal observers note that the Supreme Court has grown more protective of press freedoms in recent years but has also shown interest in revisiting aspects of defamation law in high-profile cases involving public figures and social media.
What Happens Next
If the Supreme Court grants review, the case could become a major test of how far media outlets can go in characterizing political claims using historically loaded language. A decision to hear the case would likely come later this year or in early 2027.
The lawsuit remains one of several legal actions Trump has pursued or signaled against media organizations since returning to the White House. It highlights ongoing tensions between political figures and news outlets over the boundaries of commentary versus factual reporting.
For now, the focus shifts to whether the nation’s highest court will take up the dispute and potentially reshape aspects of defamation law in the digital age.
Sam Michael
Follow us on X @realnewshubs and subscribe for push notifications