Whether the Court should reconsider the 'actual-malice' standard in defamation cases involving public figures

QUESTION PRESENTED In New York Times v. Sullivan, this Court upended common law defamation jurisprudence creating a more-often-than-not insurmountable bar for a public figure to plead and prove a defamation claim—the “actual-malice” standard. The term “public figure” was later expanded to explicitly include non-elected public officials in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts. Since the “actual malice” standard, particularly as applied to nonelected public officials, conflicts with the correct, original understanding of the First Amendment, this Court should untangle defamation claims from the clutches of the First Amendment and ensure a public figure’s right to assert a common law defamation claim for redress for reputational harm remains protected. 1. Whether this Court should reconsider Sullivan’s “actual-malice” standard or, at a minimum, cabin Sullivan’s “actual malice” standard to speech concerning public officials and be eliminated altogether for private public figures.