Grant v. Reader's Digest Association

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945 · Torts

151 F.2d 733 (2d Cir. 1945)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsDefamationLibelinnuendomeaning of wordsjury questionCommunist Partyreputation

Facts

The plaintiff was a Massachusetts lawyer. The defendant, a New York corporation, published a widely circulated periodical containing an article stating that in the author's state the Political Action Committee had hired "Sidney S. Grant," who "but recently was a legislative representative for the Massachusetts Communist Party." The complaint alleged that this statement was false and malicious and meant that the plaintiff had represented the Communist Party in Massachusetts as its legislative agent. The case turned on what meaning readers could attribute to those words and whether that meaning was libelous.

Issue

Whether a published statement that a lawyer had recently been a legislative representative for the Massachusetts Communist Party could reasonably be understood to imply that he acted on behalf of the Communist Party and sympathized with its aims and methods, and, if so, whether that meaning was libelous under New York law.

Rule

In a libel action, the court first asks what meaning a jury might reasonably attribute to the words and then whether that meaning is libelous. Under New York law, words may be actionable if they tend to arouse contempt, scorn, obloquy, or shame, and it is enough that some readers would think less of the plaintiff because of the statement; the statement need not lower him only in the eyes of so-called "right-thinking" people.

🔒

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 New York publishes an article about labor politics in Buffalo. The article says, "The transit coalition recently hired Elena Marquez, who last year served as legislative coordinator for the Empire Workers Front." Marquez sues for libel, alleging the statement falsely suggests she supports the Front's program, which many readers regard as subversive.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a libel claim under New York law as described by the majority opinion, what is the strongest argument for allowing the claim to proceed?

Explanation. The majority's first step is to ask what meaning a jury might reasonably attribute to the words. A statement that a person served as legislative representative or coordinator for an organization can support an inference that the person acted on its behalf and was generally in sympathy with its objects and methods. If some readers would hold the plaintiff in contempt or disesteem because of that implication, the statement may be libelous. Express party membership is not required.