Crime

Supreme Court Tosses Civil Case Against Cosby

NNPA NEWSWIRE — Kathrine McKee is a former L.A. morning talk show host who alleges Cosby raped her in 1974 in a Detroit hotel room while she was on tour with Sammy Davis Jr., her boyfriend at the time.

Published

7 years ago

February 26, 2019

Oakland Post

By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined review of a case brought by Bill Cosby accuser Kathrine McKee (McKee v. Cosby), who alleged being defamed when Cosby’s attorney characterized her story of being raped four decades ago as a fabricated lie.

In writing the concurring opinion for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas states, “We did not begin meddling in this area until 1964, nearly 175 years after the First Amendment was ratified. The States are perfectly capable of striking an acceptable balance between encouraging robust public discourse and providing a meaningful remedy for reputational harm. We should reconsider our jurisprudence in this area.”

The denial comes five months after the comedian was sentenced to three-to-10 years in prison for aggravated indecent assault.

Before finally weighing in on McKee’s case, the justices deferred consideration nearly a dozen times over the course of several months, a move the Hollywood Reporter speculated could have been the result of sensitivity surrounding the Capitol Hill confirmation fight over Brett Kavanaugh, who himself was accused of sexual misconduct.

Kathrine McKee and Sammy Davis Jr. on stage.

McKee is a former L.A. morning talk show host who alleges Cosby raped her in 1974 in a Detroit hotel room while she was on tour with Sammy Davis Jr., her boyfriend at the time.

Cosby has consistently denied all the allegations against him.

The question presented in McKee’s petition was “whether a victim of sexual misconduct who merely publicly states that she was victimized (i.e., #metoo) has thrust herself to the forefront of a public debate in an attempt to influence the outcome, thereby becoming a limited-purpose public figure who loses her right to recover for defamation absent a showing of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.”

Cosby’s attorneys presented the question a little differently: “Whether an actress who uses her celebrity status to gain access to national media outlets in order to publicly accuse an international entertainer — already in the midst o a public controversy concerning allegations against him — of additional misconduct is a limited-purpose public figure for purposes of defamation analysis.”

In defamation law, plaintiffs must demonstrate actual malice on the part of public figure defendants in order to prevail in a defamation claim. The precedent was established under the 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision and has been extended via several similar cases brought before the court during the intervening 55 years. Per Justice Thomas, “Like many plaintiffs subject to this ‘almost impossible’ standard, McKee was unable to make that showing.”

Applied here, that would mean the statement by Cosby’s ex-attorney Marty Singer, in response to press reports of the alleged rape of McKee by Cosby, was knowingly false or had recklessly disregarded the truth, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

“I agree with the Court’s decision not to take up that factbound question. I write to explain why, in an appropriate case, we should reconsider the precedents that require courts to ask it in the first place,” writes Thomas. “New York Times and the Court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law. Instead of simply applying the First Amendment as it was understood by the people who ratified it, the Court fashioned its own ‘federal rule[s]’ by balancing the ‘competing values at stake in defamation suits.’”

In 2017, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that McKee was a public figure and that she couldn’t demonstrate actual malice.

“I am grateful to the United States Supreme Court and to the federal courts in Massachusetts for upholding the law in this case. I thank each of the Justices for their ruling, which gives me renewed hope that the fair and impartial courts in this country will go on to deliver justice,” Cosby said in a statement released through his publicist on Tuesday.

“This is the very reason, why I, [Bill Cosby] have no remorse because I am innocent and will continue to channel the strength of the great political prisoners. Finally the truth is being allowed to be heard and read by the public,” Cosby said.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Macy’s ‘My Stylist’ Program Makes Every Shopper Feel Like Celebrities

Don't Miss

‘Empire’ is taking action against actor Jussie Smollett

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of February 11 = 17, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – February 11 – 17, 2026

Published

2 days ago

February 16, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

COMMENTARY: The National Protest Must Be Accompanied with Our Votes

Just as Trump is gathering election data like having the FBI take all the election data in Georgia from the 2020 election, so must we organize in preparation for the coming primary season to have the right people on ballots in each Republican district, so that we can regain control of the House of Representatives and by doing so, restore the separation of powers and balance that our democracy is being deprived of.

Published

1 week ago

February 10, 2026

Oakland Post

Dr. John E. Warren, Publisher San Diego Voice & Viewpoint Newspaper. File photo..

By Dr. John E. Warren, Publisher San Diego Voice & Viewpoint Newspaper

As thousands of Americans march every week in cities across this great nation, it must be remembered that the protest without the vote is of no concern to Donald Trump and his administration.

In every city, there is a personal connection to the U.S. Congress. In too many cases, the member of Congress representing the people of that city and the congressional district in which it sits, is a Republican. It is the Republicans who are giving silent support to the destructive actions of those persons like the U.S. Attorney General, the Director of Homeland Security, and the National Intelligence Director, who are carrying out the revenge campaign of the President rather than upholding the oath of office each of them took “to Defend The Constitution of the United States.”

In California, the primary comes in June 2026. The congressional races must be a priority just as much as the local election of people has been so important in keeping ICE from acquiring facilities to build more prisons around the country.

“We the People” are winning this battle, even though it might not look like it. Each of us must get involved now, right where we are.

In this Black History month, it is important to remember that all we have accomplished in this nation has been “in spite of” and not “because of.” Frederick Douglas said, “Power concedes nothing without a struggle.”

Today, the struggle is to maintain our very institutions and history. Our strength in this struggle rests in our “collectiveness.” Our newspapers and journalists are at the greatest risk. We must not personally add to the attack by ignoring those who have been our very foundation, our Black press.

Are you spending your dollars this Black History Month with those who salute and honor contributions by supporting those who tell our stories? Remember that silence is the same as consent and support for the opposition. Where do you stand and where will your dollars go?

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Congresswoman Simon Votes Against Department of Homeland Security, ICE Funding

“They need accountability. Republicans already gave these agencies an unprecedented $170 billion for immigration enforcement, funding they have used to conduct raids at schools, separate families, and deploy a masked paramilitary who refuse to identify themselves on American streets. This bill gives them more funding without a single reform to stop unconstitutional, immoral abuses,” she said.

Published

1 week ago

February 10, 2026

Oakland Post

Congresswoman Lateefah Simon (D-CA-12). File photo.

By Post Staff

Congresswoman Lateefah Simon (D-CA-12) released a statement after voting against legislation to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which supports Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CPB).

“Today, I voted NO on legislation to fund the Department of Homeland Security through Feb. 13, 2026.

“ICE and CBP do not need more funding to terrorize communities or kill more people,” she said in the media release.

“They need accountability. Republicans already gave these agencies an unprecedented $170 billion for immigration enforcement, funding they have used to conduct raids at schools, separate families, and deploy a masked paramilitary who refuse to identify themselves on American streets. This bill gives them more funding without a single reform to stop unconstitutional, immoral abuses,” she said.

“The American people are demanding change. Poll after poll of Americans’ opinions show overwhelming support for requiring ICE agents to wear body cameras and prohibiting them from hiding their faces during enforcement actions. This is the bare minimum transparency standard, and this funding legislation does not even meet this low bar,” Simon said.

“Republicans in Congress are not serious about reining in these lawless agencies. Their refusal to make meaningful changes to the DHS funding bill has consequences that go beyond immigration enforcement. TSA agents who keep our airports safe and FEMA workers who help our communities recover from disasters are stuck in limbo due to Republican inaction.

“The Constitution does not have an exception for immigrants. Every person on American soil has rights, and federal agencies must respect them. The East Bay has made clear at the Alameda County and city level that we will hold the line against a violent ICE force and support our immigrant communities – I will continue to hold the line and our values with my votes in Congress.”