Alan Dershowitz

Dershowitz sought 300 million dollars from CNN, accusing the network of distorting his remarks during Trump's impeachment. The district court and subsequently the Eleventh Circuit dismissed his action for lack of proof that CNN had acted with the 'actual malice' required for a public figure.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Protagonist is the complainant

Jacob and Shmuley Boteach filed a defamation complaint in Florida against Dershowitz and others. The case did not proceed to substantive examination: after the claimant's lawyer withdrew and defendants were not properly served, the court dismissed the action on 7 April 2026.

Attribution

Accused

In an interview published in 2026, Dershowitz clarified the practical extent of his relationship with Epstein: he estimated that he had travelled approximately twenty times on Epstein's aircraft in connection with his legal work and acknowledged receiving a single shoulder and neck massage at the Palm Beach residence.

State of the evidence

Admitted by the person

Attribution

Personally implicated

The House Oversight Committee requested a filmed and transcribed interview with Dershowitz about Epstein after he publicly said he wished to testify 'about everything'. After agreeing to a date in July, his lawyer notified the committee five days before the interview that he could no longer testify. Chairman James Comer called the withdrawal unacceptable and rescheduled the interview for 2 September 2026, threatening compulsory process.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Protagonist is a witness

Dershowitz served as 'of counsel' in Kari Lake's and Mark Finchem's lawsuit challenging the use of voting machines in Arizona. The court found the claims insufficiently supported and imposed approximately 122,200 dollars in sanctions on the legal team, of which 10% had been allocated to Dershowitz.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

After a coalition of Harvard student organisations published a statement holding Israel 'entirely responsible' for the violence following the 7 October attack, Dershowitz and Bill Ackman called for signatories to be identified so employers could choose not to hire them. The campaign was criticised as a form of blacklisting and took place amid doxxing and harassment of some students.

State of the evidence

Documented

Giuffre sued Dershowitz for defamation following his denials and public attacks; Dershowitz countersued her. In November 2022, the parties ended their actions. Giuffre stated that she acknowledged she might have made a mistake in identifying Dershowitz as one of the men to whom Epstein had allegedly trafficked her.

Attribution

Directly implicated

During Donald Trump's impeachment trial, Dershowitz argued that a president who believes his re-election serves the public interest does not necessarily commit an impeachable act merely because a public decision might also favour his re-election. His remarks on quid pro quo were criticised as an exceptionally broad theory of presidential power.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Political responsibility

In a 1997 opinion piece, Dershowitz argued that US statutory rape laws were inconsistent and proposed rethinking the legal age of consent, discussing an age of 15 and possibly 14 in certain formulations of the debate. The article was fiercely revisited in 2019 because of his connections with Jeffrey Epstein.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Personally implicated

Virginia Giuffre alleged that Epstein had forced her, when she was a minor within his network, to have sexual relations with Dershowitz. The accusation became public during civil proceedings and led to several years of media and legal conflict.

State of the evidence

Alleged

Attribution

Directly implicated

After Dershowitz publicly accused lawyers Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell of unethical conduct for publicising Giuffre's allegations, they sued him for defamation. Dershowitz filed counterclaims, and the dispute became separate litigation.

State of the evidence

Settlement

Attribution

Accused

Dershowitz opposed the political science department at Brooklyn College co-sponsoring an event supporting the BDS movement. His criticism became part of a broader campaign prompting allegations of political pressure against academic freedom and the event's ability to go ahead.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Personally implicated

Dershowitz was part of Jeffrey Epstein's legal team during negotiations leading to the 2007 federal non-prosecution agreement, which enabled Epstein to avoid federal prosecution in return for a criminal resolution in Florida. The agreement became one of the most controversial aspects of the Epstein case.

State of the evidence

Documented

Dershowitz campaigned actively against Norman Finkelstein's tenure at DePaul University, circulating a dossier critical of his work among faculty members. The refusal to grant tenure prompted considerable controversy over academic freedom and the influence of an outside intervention on a university decision.

Attribution

Personally implicated

During the 2006 Israel–Hezbollah war, Dershowitz argued that there was a continuum between entirely innocent civilians and people providing varying degrees of support to combatants, and that the uniform term 'civilian casualties' could obscure those differences. Critics argued that this reasoning risked diminishing the moral or legal protection of civilians remaining in a war zone.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Personally implicated

Norman Finkelstein accused Dershowitz of reproducing quotations and research from Joan Peters's book in 'The Case for Israel' without sufficiently acknowledging this intermediate source. The dispute prompted an intense public debate about the definition of plagiarism and citation practices.

Attribution

Directly implicated

As Norman Finkelstein prepared 'Beyond Chutzpah', a book highly critical of Dershowitz, Dershowitz contacted the University of California Press and asked officials, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, to intervene over publication. Academics denounced what they considered an attempt to suppress a critical book.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

Dershowitz proposed that, in an exceptional 'ticking bomb' situation, prior judicial authorisation could regulate certain coercive acts rather than allow torture to occur clandestinely. His proposal for 'torture warrants' was fiercely criticised by human rights advocates and lawyers who believed it would legitimise torture.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Personally implicated

After successfully participating in Claus von Bülow's defence, Alan Dershowitz published 'Reversal of Fortune', a detailed account of the case. Publication prompted a debate about professional ethics and use of client confidences and was cited in subsequent civil litigation involving attorney-client privilege.

State of the evidence

Documented