Category: Politics

INDIANAPOLIS — Former Gov. Mitch Daniels said he didn’t “see the point” of redistricting in Indiana, just as Vice President JD Vance was in the state pressing Republicans for an edge in the contest for control of the House.

“It would just be wrong,” Daniels told POLITICO. “People there have a right to pick the person they want.”

Vance traveled to the Hoosier State on Thursday to ask lawmakers to redistrict — potentially helping create 10 new seats for the GOP — ahead of the 2026 midterms. The visit comes as the White House continues to pressure Republicans in Texas to enact a new congressional map there that would generate up to five new GOP seats in the Lone Star state. Texas Democrats this week fled their state to avoid a quorum and halt the state Legislature’s business.

Daniels had sharp criticism for President Donald Trump’s redistricting push, saying the president “could’ve just kept quiet.”

“By spouting off in that way, he turns it into this partisan wrangle that we now see,” Daniels said in the interview.

Still, Daniels accused Democrats of having a history of using redistricting against Republicans over the years.

“It’s high season for hypocrisy,” he added, noting Democrats have also gerrymandered.

Gov. Mike Braun hasn’t committed to holding a special session to redistrict; Daniels pointed out that Indiana is already a Republican stronghold, holding seven of Indiana’s nine seats.

“My sense is you’d have to torture the lines to eke out another one somehow,” Daniels said. “It would be so overtly partisan that I would hope that they would abstain from it.”

If redistricting were to happen, Daniels said, “the ideal ought to be districts which make geographic sense” and “cross as few jurisdictional lines as possible.”

Should Braun call for the special session, Indiana Democrats would have limited leverage, as their Republican counterparts hold a supermajority in the Legislature. Daniels said he has not been in touch with House Speaker Todd Huston on the topic.

Daniels was one of the architects of Republican supermajorities in the Legislature, and wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post last year lamenting “one-party rule.”

“The gerrymandering that once exaggerated a dominant party’s political margin is no longer much of a factor; social clustering and these other factors have often done a more effective job than the political bosses ever did,” he wrote. “In many jurisdictions today, one would have to reverse gerrymander, mixing geographies and crossing all kinds of legal boundary lines, to produce a truly competitive electorate.”

In his interview with POLITICO, Daniels said gerrymandering means that “you don’t get the balanced, competitive districts that many of us believe would make for a healthier political system.”

​Politics

CHICAGO — The Texas Democrats staying in a Chicago suburb to protest a controversial redistricting map in their state said Wednesday that they are facing threats against their group.

The St. Charles Police Department, which oversees the jurisdiction where they are staying, confirmed a potential bomb threat was made.

“This morning, a threat was made against the safety of the members of the Texas House Democratic Caucus. We are safe, we are secure, and we are undeterred. We are grateful for Governor [JB] Pritzker, local, and state law enforcement for their quick action to ensure our safety,” caucus leadership said in a statement.

The St. Charles Police Department said the threat came in at about 7:15 a.m. Central time.

“St. Charles Police Department responded to a report of a potential bomb threat at the Q-Center hotel and convention complex” in St. Charles, the city’s police department said in a statement, and local police and the Kane County Sheriff’s Office bomb squad “conducted a thorough search and no device was found.”

“In response to the threat, 400 people were immediately evacuated and the area was secured as bomb squad units conducted their investigation,” police said.

The guests and staff were allowed to return after police gave clearance to do so.

The Texas statehouse Democrats are in Illinois after leaving their state en masse Sunday in an attempt to prevent a quorum in the Texas state Legislature — and thus stop a vote on a controversial Republican-drawn congressional map that would give as many as five more U.S. House seats to the GOP in the 2026 midterms.

The group postponed a planned press conference with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) after reports of the threat.

​Politics

With help from Amira McKee

🚨 🚨 — “Trump Weighs Getting Involved in New York City Mayor Race,” by NYT’s Nicholas Fandos, Jeremy W. Peters, Maggie Haberman and Katherine Rosman: “President Trump may have moved out of New York City, but he has privately discussed whether to intercede in its fractious race for mayor to try to stop Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee, according to eight people briefed on the discussions.” (More below)

​​CRY ME A RIVER: Even as Gov. Kathy Hochul doubles down on her Democratic gerrymandering plan, she said she’s feeling overcome with despondency for New York Republicans who could lose their seats when she tries to redraw New York’s maps to boost her party.

“I feel really sad,” Hochul said today, when asked if she had a message for any GOP reps who might see their seat erased if she pushes through a full-fledged gerrymander.

Hochul and California Gov. Gavin Newsom sprinted to the front lines of the mucky redistricting war and have vowed to redraw their own maps to add more Democratic seats ever since President Donald Trump called on Texas to abruptly redraw its Congressional maps to add 5 more GOP seats.

Luckily, Hochul noted, there’s a way out.

His name is Republican Rep. Mike Lawler, and, she said, he has the political power and sway in Washington to end partisan gerrymandering with his forthcoming federal bill that would ban the practice nationwide.

“He has so much enormous power in Washington,” Hochul said of Lawler.

Sike! She was kidding. She doesn’t feel sad. She doesn’t think Lawler has any juice in D.C. and she definitely doesn’t seem to be slowing down her push to gerrymander the hell out of New York in what she says is a response to Texas’ efforts.

On Tuesday, Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin indicated he’s encouraging other Democratic governors to consider redrawing their maps too. And the red state of Missouri, which has two GOP House seats, could be Republicans’ next gerrymandering target.

As the redistricting war looks to be going nuclear, Hochul is daring Republicans like Lawler to loudly call for an end to their party’s redistricting effort in Texas.

“Tell them to call the president of their own party and say, ‘Stand down in the war with New York and California and other Democratic states,’” Hochul said. “If you want to stop what you’re doing in Texas, I’ll stand down. You started it. You end it.”

“This is a guy who’s now saying, ‘I’m going to introduce a bill to get it changed,’” she said. “The same guy who promised a full restoration of the state and local tax deduction comes back far short from that and spins it as a win that everybody’s buying. He has no power. He won’t get it done. And I’m not sympathetic because he was silent.”

Lawler’s office noted that the increases in state and local tax deductions he fought with Trump for during the creation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act provides relief for most of his district, with only the top 10 percent of taxpayers not getting a tax cut.

“Kathy Hochul is not just the worst Governor in America, she’s also the dumbest,” Lawler said in a statement. “After years of calling for the SALT cap to be fixed, she’s now attacking the solution because Democrats weren’t the ones to get it done, my New York GOP colleagues and I were. No one believes a word she says. Her own colleagues in the State Legislature mock her at every turn. What a pathetic excuse for a leader of New York State.” — Jason Beeferman

TRUMP EYES NYC MAYOR’S RACE: Trump is “very interested” in the New York City mayoral race, said Republican billionaire John Catsimatidis, who is friendly with both Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Eric Adams. Catsimatidis said he dined Friday with Trump.

“He’s a New York guy, he grew up in New York,” Catsimatidis told Playbook. “He loves New York. He wants to make sure there’s proper accounting in New York, that the quality of life goes on in New York and that we don’t lose any more population.”

Trump hasn’t committed to a role in the race, though, and Catsimatidis said he wants the president to hold off — for now.

“I asked him to put off decisions on anything until September,” Catsimatidis said.

The New York Times reported on the president’s interest earlier today.

The Times also reported that during a closed-door meeting with Lawler last month in the White House, Trump discussed the mayor’s race with the Hudson Valley congressman.

A person familiar with the meeting told Playbook that Trump did not express a specific preference for any of the mayoral candidates, but rather was interested in who has the best shot at winning.

Trump’s involvement would come as Cuomo’s pushing for the field to coalesce around the strongest challenger to Mamdani by mid-September — a dynamic that currently favors the former governor, according to most polls.

“The president runs the country and what is said to him at the dinner party is, ‘We saved America, we saved the free world, now it’s time to save New York,” Catsimatidis said. “I’m pretty sure he agreed with it.” — Nick Reisman and Jason Beeferman

ANDREW CUOMO, THE REPLY GUY: If you haven’t been on X in the last 24 hours (lucky you) you’ve missed Cuomo’s furious — and curious — barrage of posts and replies.

Since Monday, Cuomo has expressed gratitude to someone with the username “Andrew Cuomo is a Sex Pest.” He called on Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani to “Boycott, Divest, and Sanction” his property in Uganda — a country, he noted, “that murders LGBTQIA+ people.” And the former governor even responded earnestly to someone else who told him to “Give it up grandpa.”

“No grandkids yet- but I’ve got the experience and the ability to get things done,” Cuomo wrote.

The mayoral hopeful and failed primary candidate has posted over 35 times on X over the past two days, mostly with a new, direct tone that would’ve been unbecoming of the highly-coordinated primary campaign he was running just two months ago.

It’s a new social media approach from the 67-year-old and his campaign after his millennial foe Mamdani successfully utilized the medium to handily beat him in the Democratic primary and surge the under-30 turnout.

So is Andrew himself behind the account?

“We hired this really smart kid named A.J. Parkinson,” Rich Azzopardi told Playbook, an apparent tongue-in-cheek reference to a fictitious character Cuomo’s father first brought to life and quoted frequently in the early ‘80s.

Coincidentally, Parkinson emerged around the same time Cuomo took his last nap — a fact we now know because he told us so in one of his many replies on X this afternoon.

MAGA influencer Laura Loomer loves it.

“W,” she wrote in response to Cuomo’s call for a Uganda-centric BDS movement.

Mamdani’s campaign did not comment on Cuomo’s new online approach. — Jason Beeferman

NO MATCHING FUNDS FOR ADAMS: The New York City Campaign Finance Board denied Adams millions of dollars in matching funds for the tenth time this morning — and suggested in a strongly worded statement that Adams will not be getting a penny anytime soon, POLITICO reported today.

The regulatory body denied Adams the public funding he’s seeking for his general election bid on two grounds: His campaign has not submitted required paperwork, and the board has reason to believe the campaign violated the law.

The board’s decision escalates a long-simmering standoff with the incumbent and hobbles Adams’ ability to compete at a time when he is already at a severe disadvantage. The mayor dropped out of the Democratic primary after the controversial dismissal of a federal bribery case against him. He is now running in the crowded general election as an independent.

Fellow independents Cuomo and Jim Walden are hoping to take down Mamdani, a democratic socialist who has solidly staked out the left lane in the general election. So is GOP nominee Curtis Sliwa.

Cuomo’s base overlaps with Adams’, as does Sliwa’s, although to a lesser degree. Should the multimillion-dollar hole in his war chest persist, the mayor will be forced to continue the time-consuming process of fundraising long after his opponents, placing yet another obstacle in the way of his longshot comeback bid.

Adams’ campaign did not immediately comment on the board’s latest decision. — Joe Anuta

— PAC CASH: The pro-Adams PAC, Empower NYC, has raised $1 million in support of the mayor’s long-shot reelection bid, including from crypto industry donors. (City and State)

— NUCLEAR OPTION: Hochul’s administration wants to continue subsidizing New York’s aging nuclear facilities until 2050. (POLITICO Pro)

— RYDER’S LAW: The death of a New York City carriage horse has renewed calls for City Hall to phase-out horse-drawn carriages. (CBS News)

Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.

​Politics

With help from Amira McKee

MUTUALLY ASSURED REDISTRICTING: The multi-front, tit-for-tat gerrymandering war is putting New York Republicans in a perilous position, and they’re acting quickly to condemn Hochul — and even buck President Donald Trump — to avoid becoming casualties as Dems seek retaliatory redistricting.

After President Donald Trump pressed Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to redraw his state’s congressional maps in a way that would add five GOP seats, Hochul responded with a pledge to “fight fire with fire.”

New York’s Republican Reps. Mike Lawler, Elise Stefanik, Nicole Malliotakis and Nick LaLota don’t want to become collateral damage. To that end, some are even willing to blast Trump’s efforts in Texas.

“What Texas is doing is wrong and I’m opposed to it,” Lawler texted Playbook, noting that he’s sponsoring a bill with fellow blue state Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley of California that would ban gerrymandering nationwide.

Malliotakis is speaking out against Texas’ redistricting efforts too.

“I may differ in opinion from many of my colleagues on this, particularly the ones from Texas,” she told The Joe Piscopo Show on Monday. “I’m not somebody who’s supportive of any type of gerrymandering.”

Their efforts come as Hochul continues to burn away any pretense that New York’s redistricting process should be independent.

“Up until now, Democrats have treated our political system like it’s still governed by norms, guarded by limits and rooted in fairness,” Hochul wrote in an op-ed published today in the Houston Chronicle. “Rules were meant to be followed. It hurts to say it, but that era has come to an end.”

On Monday, as Hochul hosted Texas lawmakers fleeing their state to prevent passage of redistricting legislation, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie told New York’s Republicans to pipe up.

“Perhaps the Republican members of Congress here in New York could say to their Republican colleagues in Texas, ‘Hey, slow down on this, because this can also affect us,’” he said.

But the Republicans speaking out about what’s going on deep in the heart of Texas still won’t forget Dems’ redistricting past at home.

New York Democrats tried to redraw district lines in their favor long before Trump told Texas to make changes of its own. In 2021, voters rejected a Democrat-led ballot referendum to weaken the independence of the state’s redistricting process. The next year, the courts blocked their attempts to redraw the maps in a way that would favor Democrats.

“New York Dems have been trying to gerrymander and rig the elections for years, well before what Texas is doing,” Lawler said. “They are not doing this in response, they are using this as cover to justify what they have wanted to do.”

Lawler said he’s still working on the specifics of his federal anti-gerrymandering bill.

Stefanik — who’s considering a gubernatorial run against Hochul — said she would work to prevent mid-decade redistricting in New York if elected governor. But she went silent when Playbook asked her if she’s against mid-decade redistricting in Texas.

“As Governor, Congresswoman Stefanik would support the NY State Constitution that is explicit with once a decade redistricting and the will of the voters of NY that voted for the independent bipartisan commission,” her spokesperson Alex DeGrasse said in a statement. “Congresswoman Stefanik successfully led the effort to protect the integrity of NY elections and fair district lines while Kathy Hochul tried twice to illegally gerrymander and suppress the will of New York voters.”

Hochul spokesperson Jen Goodman responded to New York’s GOP members.

“If New York House Republicans are serious about protecting democracy, they should direct their outrage at Donald Trump and their colleagues in Texas trying to dismantle it,” she said. “Until Texas stands down, Governor Hochul will continue exploring every available option to fight fire with fire and ensure New York voters are not silenced.”— Jason Beeferman

A FEDERAL SUIT AGAINST EVEN-YEAR ELECTIONS: Republicans are planning to file a federal lawsuit challenging New York’s new law moving most local elections to even-numbered years.

The suit is in the works as the state Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear arguments in September in a series of state-level cases brought over the 2023 law, which rescheduled town and county races. A mid-level appellate court concluded in May that the law doesn’t run afoul of the state constitution, despite challenges from eight GOP county executives.

Arguments in the forthcoming federal lawsuit were previewed in an amicus brief filed today in the state’s top court on behalf of the town of Riverhead and Nassau County Legislator Mazi Pilip. They’re saying the state law runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

“The primary purpose of the First Amendment is not to increase raw participation numbers, but rather to protect the public dialogue and debate that sits at the very heart of our democracy. When local elections are consolidated with federal and statewide contests, local candidates are pushed to the margins of the ‘public square,’” according to the brief, a copy of which was obtained by Playbook.

“The First Amendment doesn’t stop at the steps of the state capital,” said William A. Brewer III, the counsel representing Riverhead and Pilip. “Our clients contend that in their communities, democracy will be drowned out — not by censorship, but by unnecessary burdens to local speech.”

State Sen. James Skoufis, who sponsored the now-on-the-books bill to reschedule elections, said the suit is evidence local officials like Pilip are “afraid of more voters participating in their elections.”

“This is desperate and pathetic,” Skoufis said. “It is obviously constitutional — there are other states that have done it, there are other jurisdictions that have done it. It unequivocally and dramatically increases voter turnout. So it’s laughable on its face that anyone thinks this isn’t going to be completely thrown out of a courtroom.” — Bill Mahoney

BOOK OF JOB APPROVAL: Mayor Eric Adams held a rally on the steps of City Hall today with a pan-city collection of faith leaders backing his run. The incumbent, who is limping along in the polls and facing high disapproval ratings from voters, used the opportunity to highlight his accomplishments and re-air his longstanding grievances with the press.

Adams, who repeatedly criticized Andrew Cuomo for avoiding the media during the Democratic primary, began the event with a warning: He would not be taking questions.

“After I speak, I’m bouncing,” Adams said. “You’re not going to tarnish the good news of today.”

He closed his remarks by asking God for a “special prayer.”

“Lay hands on our media,” he said. “Heal them. Put honesty in their hearts.”

Adams has taken umbrage at coverage of his since-dismissed federal bribery case, allegations of a quid pro quo with President Donald Trump and corruption probes that hollowed out his inner circle.

As he left, reporters peppered him with queries anyway, prompting the mayor to clap and chant “ask me the good news questions” as he and his retinue disappeared into City Hall. — Joe Anuta

RESOLUTION TO BACK THE BLUE: Stefanik introduced a resolution today to condemn the mass shooting last week in midtown Manhattan, where five were killed including an off-duty NYPD officer.

The measure also condemns “divisive rhetoric and violence against federal, state, and local law enforcement officers and urges lawmakers to redouble their commitment to backing the blue.”

The North Country Republican said in a statement that “anti-police policies should have no place in our great state.”

Meanwhile, on Long Island, Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman and Rep. Andrew Garbarino, both Republicans, sought to emphasize the importance of training and collaboration among local, state and federal law enforcement officials. They toured the Nassau County Police Department’s intelligence center and police training village.

Garbarino, the new chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, said his focus will be counterterrorism, including in neighboring New York City.

“New York is the greatest city, it’s also the one that’s most top targeted and we have to protect it,” the House member said.

Stefanik and Blakeman, potential candidates for governor next year who are close allies of President Donald Trump, have slammed Democrats for policies and rhetoric they say is dangerous for law enforcement officials. But they did not reference their political affiliation in their remarks today. — Emily Ngo

— MAMDANI DRAWS JEWISH VOTERS: Zohran Mamdani appealed to Jewish New Yorkers who were drawn to his affordability-focused platform and unbothered by or supportive of his views on Israel and Gaza. (The New York Times)

— CUOMO RECALIBRATES: Andrew Cuomo’s revamped campaign is shifting away from his historically vehement defense of Israel. (Bloomberg)

— ICE CRACKDOWN: Most immigrants arrested in New York City since the Trump administration ramped up its stringent border policies do not have criminal charges or convictions. (The New York Times)

Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.

​Politics

INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana Gov. Mike Braun is noncommittal on calling a special session to mid-decade redistricting despite pressure from the White House, but said the issue could come up when Vice President JD Vance visits the Hoosier state.

Asked whether he would call a special session to redistrict, Braun said “whatever we discuss there, if that topic comes up, is exploratory. So there’s been no commitments made other than that.”

Braun, who is a constitutionally weak governor working with a more powerful legislature, said redistricting “will be a broad conversation with the speaker and president pro tem.”

“Folks raising the most Cain about it are the ones that have gerrymandered their own states, where it looks like maybe the tentacles of an octopus,” he told reporters at the Indiana Statehouse, adding: “We’ll see what happens.”

Vance’s visit on Thursday comes as President Donald Trump leans heavily on states where Republicans control the legislature and the governor’s seat to redraw congressional maps mid-cycle. That effort has triggered a fierce battle in Texas, where Republicans are hoping to create five new favorable districts — if they can overcome Democrats’ efforts to prevent the legislature from having a quorum.

Republicans currently control seven of the nine seats in Indiana’s congressional delegation, but some Trump allies are hoping the state will draw new maps to squeeze Democratic Rep. Frank Mrvan out of his northwest Indiana district.

Trump has said he hopes to gain as many as five additional seats through redistricting beyond the new Texas map. That means more states besides Texas and Ohio — which is legally required to redraw its maps and could net Republicans up to three more favorable seats — may join the redistricting wars.

​Politics

President Donald Trump is again attacking the American press – this time not with fiery rally speeches or by calling the media “the enemy of the people,” but through the courts.

Since the heat of the November 2024 election, and continuing into July, Trump has filed defamation lawsuits against “60 Minutes” broadcaster CBS News and The Wall Street Journal. He has also sued the Des Moines Register for publishing a poll just before the 2024 election that Trump alleges exaggerated support for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and thus constituted election interference and fraud.

These are in addition to other lawsuits Trump filed against the news media during his first term and during his years out of office between 2021 and 2025.

At the heart of Trump’s complaints is a familiar refrain: The media is not only biased, but dishonest, corrupt and dangerous.

The president isn’t just upset about reporting on him that he thinks is unfair. He wants to redefine what counts as libel and make it easier for public officials to sue for damages. A libel suit is a civil tort claim seeking damages when a person believes something false has been printed or broadcast about them and so harmed their reputation.

Redefining libel in this way would require overturning the Supreme Court’s 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, one of the most important First Amendment legal rulings in American constitutional history

Trump made overturning Sullivan a talking point during his first campaign for president; his lawsuits now put that threat into action. And they raise the question: What happened in Sullivan, and why does it still matter?

What Sullivan was about

As chair of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the media and the presidency, and another about media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on free expression.

In 1960, The New York Times published a full-page advertisement titled “Heed Their Rising Voices”. The ad, which included an appeal for readers to send money in support of Martin Luther King Jr. and the movement against Jim Crow, described brutal and unjust treatment of Black students and protesters in Montgomery, Alabama. It also emphasized episodes of police violence against peaceful demonstrations.

The ad was not entirely accurate in its description of the behavior of either protesters or the police.

It claimed, for instance, that activists had sung “My Country ’Tis of Thee” on the steps of the state capitol during a rally, when they actually had sung the national anthem. It said that “truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear-gas” had “ringed” a college campus, when the police had only been deployed nearby. And it asserted that King had been arrested seven times in Alabama, when the real number was four.

Though the ad did not identify any individual public officials by name, it disparaged the behavior of Montgomery police.

That’s where L.B. Sullivan came in.

As Montgomery’s police commissioner, he oversaw the police department. Sullivan claimed that because the ad maligned the conduct of law enforcement, it had implicitly defamed him. In 1960 in Alabama, a primary defense against libel was truth. But since there were mistakes in the ad, a truth defense could not be raised. Sullivan sued for damages, and an Alabama jury awarded him US$500,000, equivalent to $5,450,000 in 2025.

The message to the press was clear: criticize Southern officials and risk being sued out of existence.

In fact, the Sullivan lawsuit was not an isolated incident, but part of a broader strategy. In addition to Sullivan, four other Montgomery officials filed suits against the Times.

In Birmingham, public officials filed seven libel lawsuits over Times reporter Harrison Salisbury’s trenchant reporting about racism in that city. The lawsuits helped push the Times to the edge of bankruptcy. Salisbury was even indicted for seditious libel and faced up to 21 years in prison.

Alabama officials also sued CBS, The Associated Press, the Saturday Evening Post and Ladies’ Home Journal – all for reporting on civil rights and the South’s brutal response.

The Supreme Court decision

The jury’s verdict in favor of Sullivan was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in 1964.

Writing for the court, Justice William Brennan held that public officials cannot prevail in defamation lawsuits merely by showing that statements are false. Instead, they must prove such statements are made with “actual malice”. Actual malice means a reporter or press outlet knew their story was false or else acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

The decision set a high bar.

Before the ruling, the First Amendment’s protections for speech and the press didn’t offer much help to the press in libel cases.

After it, public officials who wanted to sue the press would have to prove “actual malice” – real, purposeful untruths that caused harm. Honest mistakes weren’t enough to prevail in such lawsuits. The court held that errors are inevitable in public debate and that protecting those mistakes is essential to keeping debate open and free.

Nonviolent protest and the press

In essence, the court ruling blocked government officials from suing for libel with ulterior motives.

King and other civil rights leaders relied on a strategy of nonviolent protest to expose injustice through public, visible actions.

When protesters were arrested, beaten or hosed in the streets, their goal was not chaos – it was clarity. They wanted the nation to see what Southern oppression looked like. For that, they needed press coverage.

If Sullivan’s lawsuit had succeeded, it could have bullied the press away from covering civil rights altogether. The Supreme Court recognized this danger.

Public officials treated differently

Another key element of the court’s reasoning was its distinction between public officials and private citizens.

Elected leaders, the court said, can use mass media to defend themselves in ways ordinary people cannot.

“The public official certainly has equal if not greater access than most private citizens to media of communication,” Justice Brennan wrote in the Sullivan ruling.

Trump is a perfect example of this dynamic. He masterfully uses social media, rallies, televised interviews and impromptu remarks to push back. He doesn’t need the courts.

Giving public officials the power to sue over news stories they dislike could well create a chilling effect on the media that undermines government accountability and distorts public discourse.

“The theory of our Constitution is that every citizen may speak his mind and every newspaper express its view on matters of public concern and may not be barred from speaking or publishing because those in control of government think that what is said or written is unwise,” Brennan wrote.

“In a democratic society, one who assumes to act for the citizens in an executive, legislative, or judicial capacity must expect that his official acts will be commented upon and criticized.”

Why Sullivan still matters

The Sullivan ruling is more than a legal doctrine. It is a shared agreement about the kind of democracy Americans aspire to. It affirms a press duty to hold power to account, and a public right to hear facts and information that those in power want to suppress.

The ruling protects the right to criticize those in power and affirms that the press is not a nuisance, but an essential part of a functioning democracy. It ensures that political leaders cannot insulate themselves from scrutiny by silencing their critics through intimidation or litigation.

Trump’s lawsuits seek to undo these press protections. He presents himself as the victim of a dishonest press and hopes to use the legal system to punish those he perceives to be his detractors.

The decision in the Sullivan case reminds Americans that democracy doesn’t depend on leaders who feel comfortable. It depends on a public that is free to speak.

Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation