Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1986 · Civil Procedure

Civil Proceduresummary judgmentgenuine issue of material factactual maliceclear and convincingRule 56summary judgmentgenuine issue

Facts

Liberty Lobby and Willis Carto sued over three magazine articles that portrayed them as neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist, and Fascist. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment and submitted an affidavit from article author Charles Bermant stating that he had extensively researched the articles, relied on many sources, and believed the articles were truthful and accurate. Plaintiffs opposed the motion by asserting inaccuracies, arguing that Bermant had relied on patently unreliable sources, and offering evidence that an editor had called the articles "terrible" and "ridiculous" before publication. The District Court treated respondents as limited-purpose public figures, applied New York Times, and held that the record precluded a finding of actual malice.

Issue

When a court rules on a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment in a public-figure libel case governed by New York Times, must it take into account the plaintiff's burden to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence? More generally, does the substantive evidentiary burden at trial inform whether a factual dispute is "genuine" for summary judgment purposes?

Rule

A court deciding summary judgment must be guided by the substantive evidentiary standard that would apply at trial. Thus, in a public-figure libel case, the question is whether the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence; a mere scintilla, merely colorable evidence, or evidence that is not significantly probative does not create a genuine issue for trial.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal court in Chicago, Maya Torres, a well-known local activist, sues North Harbor Media for defamation over an article about her public campaign activities. After discovery, the publisher moves for summary judgment with affidavits from the reporter and editor stating they investigated extensively and believed the article was true; Maya responds with two emails suggesting some facts may have been mistaken and argues that a jury could still infer reckless disregard.

What is the proper Rule 56 inquiry for the judge?

Explanation. The court must evaluate summary judgment through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden that would apply at trial. Where actual malice must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question is whether the evidence could permit a reasonable jury to find actual malice with convincing clarity. The judge does not ask only whether some contrary evidence exists, does not make a personal credibility judgment, and does not categorically exempt state-of-mind issues from summary judgment.