Monitor Patriot Company v. Roy

Supreme Court of the United States · 1971 · Torts

401 U.S. 265 (1971)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsDefamationLibelFirst AmendmentPolitical campaignsactual malicepublic officialpublic figure

Facts

Three days before a New Hampshire Democratic primary for the United States Senate, the Concord Monitor published a syndicated column about the election that described candidate Alphonse Roy as a "former small-time bootlegger." Roy lost the primary and then sued the newspaper and the distributor, NANA, for libel. At trial, the judge instructed the jury that although Roy was a public official by virtue of his candidacy, the New York Times actual malice standard applied only if the statement was in the "public sector" by being relevant to his fitness for office; otherwise the jury could impose liability under lesser standards such as truth plus lawful occasion or conditional privilege. The jury returned verdicts against both defendants, showing it had treated the bootlegger charge as a "private sector" matter.

Issue

Whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments permit a state to let a jury decide that a charge of prior criminal conduct against a candidate for public office is irrelevant to his fitness for office and therefore outside the New York Times actual malice standard. More broadly, whether publications concerning candidates may receive less constitutional protection than publications concerning public officials.

Rule

Publications concerning candidates for public office must receive at least as much First and Fourteenth Amendment protection as publications concerning public officials. As a matter of constitutional law, a charge of criminal conduct, no matter how remote in time or place, can never be irrelevant to an official's or a candidate's fitness for office for purposes of applying the New York Times rule requiring proof of knowing falsehood or reckless disregard of the truth.

🔒

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.

Two weeks before a mayoral election in Toledo, the Toledo Ledger publishes an article stating that candidate Nina Alvarez once ran an illegal gambling room in Nevada in the 1990s. Alvarez sues for libel, and the trial judge tells the jury it may use ordinary negligence standards if it thinks the accusation concerns her private life rather than her fitness for office.

Which is the strongest constitutional objection to the instruction?

Explanation. Publications concerning candidates for public office receive at least as much First Amendment protection as publications concerning officeholders. Under the majority rule, a charge of criminal conduct, no matter how remote in time or place, can never be deemed irrelevant to a candidate’s fitness for office for purposes of avoiding the New York Times actual malice requirement of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard.