The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down a case against news outlets that conveyed unsupported information from a Native American activist who approached students in Washington.
Nick Sandmann sued a number of news outlets after video footage showed that claims made by Nathan Phillips, the activist, and conveyed by The Washington Post and other outlets were false, including that Mr. Sandmann and other students “swarmed around him” and that Mr. Sandmann “blocked” his path and “prevented his escape.”
On Jan. 18, 2019, Mr. Sandmann and other students at Covington Catholic High School attended a pro-life march in Washington.
After the march, they went to the steps near the Lincoln Memorial. Mr. Phillips and other people who attended the Indigenous Peoples March were also in the area. Mr. Phillips said he saw the boys interacting with a group of Black Hebrew Israelites and wanted to make sure things were calm, so he went over and drummed and sang by them. Some students chanted in response, though Mr. Sandmann was not one of them.
Mr. Sandmann stood and smiled as Mr. Phillips drummed. Soon after, a chaperone arrived and directed the students to leave, and they moved away.
“In the factual context of this case, Phillips’s ‘blocking’ statements are protected opinions,” U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman wrote at the time. An appeals court panel upheld the ruling, finding that Mr. Phillips’s statements were an expression of “his subjective understanding of the situation,” although a dissent described the statements as “objectively verifiable.”
In a writ to the Supreme Court, lawyers for Mr. Sandmann noted that full video footage of the incident was available at the time the articles were published, but the articles relied on an edited portion of the full encounter.
“By not fact-checking, and indeed without the mere semblance of care or research, these publications ignored the basic ethical and investigatory obligations of professional journalism,” the lawyers wrote. “Worse, they carelessly or maliciously unleashed this thoughtless attack on an underage minor, publicizing his name, his school, his town of residence, and his face, casting him permanently and at a tender age into the ‘canceled’ world of social pariahs and moral outcasts.”
They added, “In truth, Sandmann no more ‘blocked’ Phillips than it can be said that a lone tree ‘blocks’ one’s way across an otherwise open field.”
The lawyers asked the court to reverse the lower court rulings and let a jury hear the case.
In an unsigned order on March 24, the court denied the request.
A lawyer representing The New York Times declined to comment. Lawyers for the other defendants did not return inquiries.
Todd McMurtry, representing Mr. Sandmann, told The Epoch Times that he was disappointed about the Supreme Court’s denial.
“This outcome denies Nick justice and misses an opportunity to set important precedents for protecting individual rights against defamation by mainstream media,” he said. “The Supreme Court’s refusal to address the critical issues presented by our case illustrates the growing challenges individuals face in the public sphere. Such challenges include unchecked defamation, significantly threatening individuals’ reputational integrity and personal dignity. It touches upon the very essence of our democratic values and the right of every American to seek redress when those values are compromised.”
He added that his forthcoming book, “Dismissed,” will cover defamation law and the challenges that people such as Mr. Sandmann face in “seeking justice against powerful media entities.”
Mr. Sandmann noted the denial on social media platform X but did not comment on it.
