Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

Supreme Court of the United States · 1964 · Constitutional Law

First Amendmentdefamationactual malicepublic officialsConstitutional LawTortslibeldefamation

Facts

The New York Times published a paid advertisement criticizing treatment of civil-rights protesters in the South and describing events in Montgomery, Alabama; some factual statements in the ad were inaccurate. L. B. Sullivan, an elected Montgomery commissioner who supervised the police department, sued for libel even though the advertisement did not mention him by name, claiming references to police conduct were understood as referring to him. Under Alabama law as applied, the statements were treated as libelous per se, falsity and malice were presumed, general damages were presumed without proof of pecuniary loss, and the jury returned a general verdict for $500,000. The Times had not checked the ad against its files, and the individual petitioners testified they had not authorized use of their names and were unaware of the ad until receiving retraction demands.

Issue

Whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments permit a state to award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct under a rule that presumes falsity, malice, and damages and places the burden on the defendant to prove truth. Also, whether the evidence here was constitutionally sufficient to show actual malice and that the statements were of and concerning Sullivan.

Rule

A public official may not recover damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice, meaning with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Presumptions of malice or damages cannot substitute for that proof, and First Amendment protection is not lost merely because the statement appeared in a paid advertisement.

🔒

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, a city police chief sued a weekly paper over an article claiming officers had used dogs on peaceful marchers and detained organizers without cause. The article concerned the department's handling of demonstrations, and the chief was plainly identified by title. At trial, the judge instructed the jury that once the article was found defamatory, falsity and malice were presumed unless the paper proved the story true in every detail.

If the chief is a public official suing over criticism of official conduct, which is the strongest constitutional objection to the instruction?

Explanation. When a public official seeks damages for defamatory falsehood relating to official conduct, the Constitution requires the plaintiff to prove actual malice: knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of whether the statement was false or not. A state may not rely on presumptions of falsity, malice, or damages, nor place on the defendant the burden of proving truth. That rule comes directly from the majority opinion.