Rosenblatt v. Baer

Supreme Court of the United States · 1966 · Torts

383 U.S. 75 (1966)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsDefamationLibelFirst AmendmentPublic Official Doctrinepublic officialactual maliceof and concerning

Facts

Respondent had served as Supervisor of the Belknap County Recreation Area, a county-owned and county-operated facility, and was directly responsible to the county commissioners. After public controversy over management of the Area, control was transferred to a new commission and respondent was discharged. About six months later, petitioner published a column praising the new regime's dramatically better cash results and asking, "What happened to all the money last year? and every other year?" The column did not name respondent or the prior commissioners, but respondent introduced extrinsic proof that members of the community read it as imputing peculation or mismanagement during his tenure and specifically referring to him.

Issue

Whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments permit respondent to recover libel damages based on a newspaper column discussing government operations when the column did not expressly refer to him, and whether the New York Times actual malice standard applies if he was a public official. Also at issue was whether a government employee in respondent's position could qualify as a public official for purposes of that constitutional rule.

Rule

An otherwise impersonal attack on governmental operations cannot constitutionally support a libel recovery absent evidence that the statement was specifically directed at the plaintiff. The New York Times actual malice standard applies at least to those government employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs, and such a plaintiff may recover only upon proof that the defamatory falsehood was made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for 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.

A weekly paper in Boise publishes an editorial stating, "For years, the city-owned marina bled money. Where did the revenue go?" The editorial does not name any employee or board member. Nolan Price, the marina's former operations director, sues and proves only that he supervised day-to-day marina operations before he was replaced.

If Nolan offers no additional evidence that readers understood the editorial to refer specifically to him, which is the strongest argument against his recovery?

Explanation. The majority held that the Constitution bars recovery when liability rests only on an impersonal criticism of government operations and the plaintiff's connection to the agency. The plaintiff must show evidence that the statement was read as specifically directed at him. The Court did not hold that all government-related criticism is immune, that express naming is always required, or that rhetorical questions are always protected.