Public figures have sought in recent years to bring a case to the U.S. Supreme Court that would make them revisit the 1964 landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan.
The ruling, which stablished that public figures must show "actual malice" in order to prove defamation from a news medium, has caught criticism from both inside and outside the court, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who's called the decision "flawed."
Legal historian and award-winning author Samantha Barbas shares how an overruling of the case could set a dangerous precedent for the First Amendment's freedom of the press. She also discusses other threats to the First Amendment, and perceptions on what's protected by the law.
Plus, as the ACA open enrollment deadline nears, UI professor Pete Damiano shares what may happen to the Affordable Care Act under a second Trump administration, and what the president elect's cabinet nominations mean for the department of health and human services and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Guests:
- Samantha Barbas, professor and Aliber Family Chair in Law, UI College of Law
- Pete Damiano, Bernstein endowed professor and interim dean for research, UI College of Dentistry
