No. 39New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
No. 39
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
376 U.S. 254
January 6, 1964
March 9, 1964
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
ALABAMA
Syllabus Respondent, an elected official in
Montgomery, Alabama, brought suit in a state court alleging that he had been libeled by an
advertisement in corporate petitioner's newspaper, the text of which appeared over the
names of the four individual petitioners and many others. The advertisement included
statements, some of which were false, about police action allegedly directed against
students who participated in a civil rights demonstration and against a leader of the
civil rights movement; respondent claimed the statements referred to him because his
duties included supervision of the police department. The trial judge instructed the jury
that such statements were "libelous per se," legal injury being implied
without proof of actual damages, and that, for the purpose of compensatory damages, malice
was presumed, so that such damages could be awarded against petitioners if the statements
were found to have been published by them and to have related to respondent. As to
punitive damages, the judge instructed that mere negligence was not evidence of actual
malice, and would not justify an award of punitive damages; he refused to instruct that
actual intent to harm or recklessness had to be found before punitive damages could be
awarded, or that a verdict for respondent should differentiate between compensatory and
punitive damages. The jury found for respondent, and the State Supreme Court affirmed.
Held: 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. Pp. 265-292
.
(a) Application by state courts of a
rule of law, whether statutory or not, to award a judgment in a civil action, is
"state action" under the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 265
.
(b) Expression does not lose
constitutional protection to which it would otherwise be entitled because it appears in
the form of a paid advertisement. Pp. 265-266
. [p*255]
(c) Factual error, content
defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of
damages for false statements unless "actual malice" -- knowledge that statements
are false or in reckless disregard of the truth -- is alleged and proved. Pp. 279-283
.
(d) 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. P. 284
.
(e) The evidence was
constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment for respondent, since it failed to
support a finding that the statements were made with actual malice or that they related to
respondent. Pp. 285-292
.
273 Ala. 656, 144 So.2d 25, reversed
and remanded. [p*256]
Opinions BRENNAN, J., Opinion of the Court MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the
opinion of the Court.
Return to Timeline