Thomas indicated he wants to make it easier to hold media companies accountable

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas indicated he would be willing to vote in favor of undoing a 1964 ruling by the high court that made it hard to sue media companies for libel.

According to a report by The New York Post the conservative justice, who was one of the majority votes that overturned Roe v. Wade‘s abortion protections on Friday, dissented from the court’s decision not to hear the case brought by a Christian group that sued the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Justice Neil Gorsuch also agreed with Thomas’ view that New York Times v. Sullivan should be relitigated.

Following the SPLC’s designation of the Christian organization as a hate group, Coral Ridge Ministries Media launched a lawsuit against the left-leaning watchdog.

The group faced a high hurdle for suing for defamation against famous figures was set by the 1964 court case New York Times v. Sullivan, which created the precedent for the litigation.

“I would grant certiorari in this case to revisit the ‘actual malice’ standard,” Thomas wrote in his dissent.

“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.’”

Thomas wrote: “SPLC’s ‘hate group’ designation lumped Coral Ridge’s Christian ministry with groups like the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis.”

“It placed Coral Ridge on an interactive, online ‘Hate Map’ and caused Coral Ridge concrete financial injury by excluding it from the AmazonSmile donation program.”

The justice continued: “Nonetheless, unable to satisfy the ‘almost impossible’ actual-malice standard this Court has imposed, Coral Ridge could not hold SPLC to account for what it maintains is a blatant falsehood.”