Tort Law

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

376 U.S. 254

Citation: 376 U.S. 254
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date: 9 Mar 1964
Bench: Warren CJ; Black, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White and Goldberg JJ

Facts

• The New York Times published a paid advertisement titled “Heed Their Rising Voices.”
• The advertisement sought support for the civil-rights movement in the southern United States.
• It described police action against peaceful demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama.
• Some details were inaccurate.
• For example, the advertisement misstated certain events, numbers and circumstances connected with demonstrations and arrests.
• L.B. Sullivan was one of the city commissioners responsible for supervising public departments, including the police.
• Sullivan was not expressly named in the advertisement.
• He claimed that criticism of the Montgomery police would be understood as criticism of him personally.
• An Alabama jury awarded him US$500,000 in libel damages.
• State law effectively required the newspaper to prove the truth of the statements and did not require Sullivan to establish intentional or reckless falsity.
• The New York Times appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

• What fault must a public official prove when suing over criticism of official conduct?
• Whether minor factual inaccuracies remove constitutional protection.
• Whether the evidence established that the advertisement referred to Sullivan and was published with the necessary fault.

• Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, a public official cannot recover damages for a defamatory falsehood concerning official conduct unless actual malice is proved.
• Actual malice means:
o knowledge that the statement was false; or
o reckless disregard of whether it was false.
• Reckless disregard requires more than carelessness or failure to investigate.
• The claimant must present clear and convincing evidence that the publisher seriously doubted the truth or consciously ignored probable falsity.
• Robust public debate requires protection for some erroneous statements because fear of liability would otherwise silence legitimate criticism.
• “Actual malice” is a technical fault standard and does not mean personal hatred.

• The advertisement addressed police response to civil-rights activity—a matter of the highest public importance.
• The inaccuracies did not by themselves prove actual malice.
• There was no evidence that the Times knew the statements were false.
• Nor was there evidence that it entertained serious doubts and deliberately published anyway.
• At most, the newspaper had failed to verify every detail of an advertisement submitted by respected civil-rights figures.
• Ordinary negligence was constitutionally insufficient.
• Sullivan also faced difficulty proving reference because the advertisement did not name him.
• Permitting enormous damages under a low fault standard would discourage newspapers and citizens from criticising government officials.
• The Supreme Court therefore placed the risk of some honest error upon public officials rather than allowing defamation law to suppress democratic debate.

• The United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment for Sullivan.
• A public official must prove actual malice before recovering for statements concerning official conduct.
• The evidence did not show knowing falsity or reckless disregard by the New York Times.
• The decision created the constitutional “actual malice” rule governing American public-official defamation claims.