New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

A. Issues Discussed: Free speech, libel

B. Legal Question Presented:

Does Alabama’s rule of liability for libel – which provides that a publication is “libelous per se” if the words “tend to injure a person… in his reputation” or to “bring [him] into public contempt,” without regard to the defendant intent in publishing the statement – as applied to an action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct, abridge the freedom of speech and of the press that is guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

A. Background:

In 1960, during the Civil Rights movement in the South, the New York Times published a full page editorial advertisement, “Heed Their Rising Voices”, describing unfair and brutal police responses to student protests in Montgomery, Alabama. There were several errors in the ad, none of which were known to the publisher at the time of printing. Although he was not named in the ad, L.B. Sullivan, city commissioner of Montgomery, whose work included supervision of the police filed a law suit for libel. He sued both the New York Times and six people whose names were signed to the ad.

The trial judge instructed the jury that some of the false statements in the advertisement were “libelous per se” and the jury awarded Sullivan damages of $500,000.

The Supreme Court of Alabama upheld the award. On certiorari the Supreme Court reversed.

Herbert Wechsler argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Herbert Brownell, Thomas F. Daly, Louis M. Loeb, T. Eric Embry, Marvin E. Frankel, Ronald S. Diana and Doris Wechsler.

“A State cannot under the First and Fourteenth Amendments award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves ‘actual malice’ – that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.

Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless ‘actual malice’… is alleged and proved.

State court judgment entered upon a general verdict which does not differentiate between punitive damages, as to which under state law actual malice must be proved, and general damages, as to which it is ‘presumed,’ precludes any determination as to the basis of the verdict and requires reversal, where presumption of malice is inconsistent with federal constitutional requirements.”

The Supreme Court reversed the jury award and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama.

The ACLU, as amicus curiae, urged reversal of the Alabama Supreme Court’s Judgment; the Supreme Court reversed in a 9-0 vote, giving the ACLU an apparent win.