Does grant of summary judgment to Respondent Lee Enterprises conflict with requirements for a jury trial per Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)?

Questions Presented As a global information network accessible by smartphones was science fiction, New York Times v. Sullivan federalized libel law in 1964. Variously critiqued by members of this Court, including Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kagan, Sullivan . explicitly left open the question of whether “failure to retract may ever constitute evidence” of actual malice. Leaving Sullivan’s actual malice core intact, Petitioner presents two questions of national importance. The first addresses the crucial role of juries in . public figure defamation cases. The second seeks an answer to the question left open sixty years ago, addressing Sullivan’s actual malice provision from a practical perspective in the internet age. Question #1 — Does grant of summary judgment to Respondent Lee Enterprises conflict with requirements for a jury trial per Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)? Question #2 — Can years-spanning refusal to retract objectively false statements on a website under a publisher’s sole control constitute evidence of actual ; malice?