Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1974 · Constitutional Law

defamationprivate figuresactual malicenegligence standarddefamationFirst Amendmentprivate individualpublic official

Facts

After a Chicago police officer was prosecuted for killing a youth, petitioner Elmer Gertz represented the victim's family in civil litigation against the officer. Respondent's magazine published an article portraying Gertz as an architect of a supposed Communist-inspired frame-up of the officer and falsely stated, among other things, that he had a criminal record, was a Leninist and Communist-fronter, and had belonged to certain organizations. The managing editor made no effort to verify these accusations, but there was no showing that he knew they were false or acted with subjective awareness of probable falsity. A jury awarded Gertz damages, but the lower courts ultimately ruled for respondent under the New York Times actual malice standard because the article involved an issue of public interest.

Issue

Whether a publisher that defames an individual who is neither a public official nor a public figure may claim the New York Times constitutional privilege merely because the defamatory statements concern a matter of public or general interest. Also, what constitutional limits the First Amendment places on state defamation law governing private individuals.

Rule

The New York Times actual malice standard does not extend to defamatory falsehoods about private individuals simply because the statements concern matters of public or general interest. So long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual.

🔒

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.

A weekly magazine in Denver publishes an article about alleged corruption in the city's housing inspections office. The article falsely states that Nora Patel, a private accountant who once reviewed invoices for a neighborhood group, secretly laundered bribe money; she has never held public office and is not widely known.

If Colorado allows private defamation plaintiffs to recover on proof that the publisher acted negligently, which argument by the magazine is weakest under the governing constitutional rule?

Explanation. The majority rejected the view that the New York Times actual malice standard applies merely because speech concerns a matter of public or general interest. Where the plaintiff is a private individual, the State may choose an appropriate liability standard so long as it does not impose liability without fault. Thus the magazine's claim that public concern alone triggers actual malice is the weakest argument. (Derived from Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974).)