Garrison v. Louisiana

Supreme Court of the United States · 1964 · Torts

379 U.S. 64 (1964)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsDefamationCriminal libelFirst AmendmentPublic officialscriminal defamationlibelofficial conduct

Facts

During a dispute with the eight judges of the Criminal District Court of Orleans Parish, appellant held a press conference and issued a statement disparaging their judicial conduct. The charged statements attributed a backlog of criminal cases to the judges' inefficiency, laziness, and excessive vacations, and accused them of hampering vice-law enforcement by refusing to authorize certain undercover-investigation expenses. He also suggested that their refusal raised questions about "racketeer influences" on the judges. He was then prosecuted and convicted of criminal defamation under Louisiana law.

Issue

Whether a state may impose criminal defamation sanctions for criticism of public officials' official conduct under standards that punish true statements made with ill-will and false statements made without a reasonable belief in their truth, rather than limiting punishment to knowing or reckless falsehoods.

Rule

When speech concerns the official conduct of public officials, the Constitution applies the same standard to criminal defamation as to civil libel under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Truth may not be punished, and false statements may be punished only if made with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard of whether they were false or true; ill-will, enmity, or mere lack of reasonable belief is insufficient.

🔒

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 Cleveland, City Council member Dana Mercer held a press conference accusing the police chief, Owen Pike, of routinely skipping weekly command meetings and allowing case reviews to pile up. At trial under an Ohio criminal defamation statute, the prosecution proves the statements were true but also shows Mercer deeply disliked Pike and wanted to ruin his reputation before reelection season.

If Mercer's conviction is based solely on those facts, what is the strongest constitutional objection?

Explanation. When speech concerns a public official's official conduct, the same constitutional limits apply to criminal defamation as to civil libel. Truth cannot be punished in discussion of public affairs, and ill-will, hatred, or enmity does not remove that protection. A rule allowing punishment of true statements because they were made with spite is unconstitutional.