Final answer:
The district court granted summary judgment for Fox in the case of Levesque v. Doocy because the statements were opinions and protected by the First Amendment. In the New York Times v. Sullivan case, the Supreme Court ruled that public officials must prove defamatory statements were made with "actual malice."
Step-by-step explanation:
The district court granted summary judgment for Fox in the case of Levesque v. Doocy because the statements were opinions. This protection for opinions comes from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which upholds the freedom of speech. In the case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that public officials must prove that a defamatory statement was made with "actual malice" - meaning with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Therefore, since the statements made by Fox in the Levesque v. Doocy case were opinions and protected speech, the court granted summary judgment to Fox