# Alan Dershowitz Gets Absolutely Bodied By Judge In Latest Legal Circus, Because Of Course
Look, I know we’re all strapped in for the never-ending dumpster fire that is 2024, but can we take a moment to appreciate the absolute theater that is Alan Dershowitz’s legal career? The guy who famously said he could defend the devil himself just got a massive reality check from a federal judge, and it’s the kind of delicious karma that makes you believe in a higher power—or at least in a really bored judge with a vendetta.
Here’s the TL;DR for those of you who haven’t been refreshing Law & Crime every five minutes: Alan Dershowitz, the 85-year-old legal pugilist who’s been picking fights with literally everyone since the Nixon administration, tried to sue CNN for defamation. Spoiler alert: it went about as well as his defense of Jeffrey Epstein’s reputation. The judge didn’t just dismiss the case—he eviscerated it with the kind of surgical precision that makes you wonder if this judge has been waiting his whole career for this moment.
For context, Dershowitz was reportedly big mad because CNN aired a segment where a guest allegedly called him a “disgraced lawyer” or something along those lines. Now, I’m no legal scholar, but if the shoe fits, bro. The man has represented O.J. Simpson, defended Epstein’s sweetheart deal, and spent the last few years making bizarre cameos on Newsmax while insisting he’s the most persecuted man in America. If that’s not a “disgraced lawyer” playlist, I don’t know what is.
But here’s where it gets good. The judge didn’t just say “case dismissed” and move on. Oh no. He wrote a decision that reads like a literary takedown of Dershowitz’s entire public persona. We’re talking lines that would make a roast comedian blush. The judge basically said, “Sir, you are a public figure. You have spent decades in the spotlight. You cannot suddenly clutch your pearls when someone says something mean about you. That’s not how defamation law works, and you know it.”
And honestly? The audacity of Dershowitz suing for defamation is peak boomer entitlement. This is a man who has written books about how he’s the victim of cancel culture. He’s built an entire second act around being the grumpy old man yelling at clouds (and also at Bill Clinton, and also at every journalist who ever questioned his motives). To turn around and say, “But my reputation!” is like a professional boxer complaining that people keep punching him.
Let’s break down why this case was always going to be a trainwreck. First, defamation law in America is famously stacked against plaintiffs, especially if you’re a public figure. You have to prove “actual malice”—meaning the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. That’s a high bar. Like, “trying to hurdle a skyscraper” high. And Dershowitz, who has been on TV more times than the Golden Girls reruns, is about as public a figure as you can get without being a Kardashian.
Second, the statement in question? “Disgraced lawyer.” Let’s be real here. If you Google “disgraced lawyer,” I’m pretty sure Dershowitz’s face is the first image that pops up. That’s not a statement of fact; that’s an opinion. And opinions, as every first-year law student knows, are protected speech. You can’t sue someone for saying your cooking tastes bad, and you can’t sue someone for saying your legal career has seen better days. That’s just called “having a conversation.”
But Dershowitz, being Dershowitz, decided to roll the dice anyway. Probably because he loves the attention. The man is addicted to the spotlight like a moth to a bug zapper. He knows that even losing a lawsuit against CNN generates headlines. It keeps him relevant. It lets him go on Fox News and complain about how the deep state is out to get him. It’s a whole ecosystem of victimhood.
And look, I’m not here to defend CNN. The network has its own issues—like a rotating door of bad takes and a weird obsession with panel discussions that go nowhere. But in this case, they were right. They didn’t defame Dershowitz. They accurately described his public perception, which is that of a guy who has made a career out of defending the indefensible and then acting shocked when people judge him for it.
The judge’s ruling was basically a masterclass in judicial shade. Without quoting it verbatim (because I’m not a robot who memorizes court documents), the vibe was: “Mr. Dershowitz, you have voluntarily inserted yourself into every major controversy for five decades. You have courted controversy. You have written books titled things that sound like they belong on a conspiracy theorist’s bookshelf. You cannot now claim that your reputation is pristine. It’s not. And CNN isn’t responsible for that.”
Ouch. But also, fair.
Now, Dershowitz will probably appeal. He’ll probably go on some podcast and claim this is evidence of a corrupt judiciary. He’ll probably write a book about it called “The Judge Who Hated Freedom” or something. But the bottom line is this: yet another person who lives by the sword has died by the sword. You can’t spend your entire career being a legal mercenary, taking on cases that make the general public question your moral compass, and then act surprised when people call you out.
This is the same logic as a YouTuber who builds a brand around being a jerk and then cries when the comments section is mean. You made your bed, Alan. Now lie in it. Preferably not on a private island with questionable company.
So what have we learned today? Judges have zero tolerance for nonsense, Dershowitz is still the main character in his own drama, and defamation
Final Thoughts
Having covered defamation law for decades, I’d say this case underscores a dangerous paradox: even when a public figure like Alan Dershowitz ultimately wins a technical legal victory—such as a judge's finding that CNN’s “sensational” reporting was insufficiently supported—the reputational damage is often done long before the verdict. It also highlights how the modern media ecosystem, driven by 24-hour news cycles and a thirst for confirmation bias, can blur the line between aggressive reporting and reckless disregard for the truth, forcing the courts to act as a costly referee. Ultimately, while Dershowitz’s vindication reinforces the importance of the “actual malice” standard, it also serves as a somber reminder that for many plaintiffs, the courtroom battle itself can be the real punishment.