New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Supreme Court of the United States
January 6, 1964, Argued ; March 9, 1964, Decided
[*256] [***692] [**713] MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are required in this case to determine for the first time the extent to which the constitutional protections for speech and press limit a State's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his [****5] official conduct.
Respondent L. B. Sullivan is one of the three elected Commissioners of the City of Montgomery, Alabama. He testified that he was "Commissioner of Public Affairs and the duties are supervision of the Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Cemetery and Department of Scales." He brought this civil libel action against the four individual petitioners, who are Negroes and Alabama clergymen, and against petitioner the New York Times Company, a New York corporation which publishes the New York Times, a daily newspaper. A jury in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County awarded him damages of $ 500,000, the full amount claimed, against all the petitioners, and the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed. 273 Ala. 656, 144 So. 2d 25.
Respondent's complaint alleged that he had been libeled by statements in a full-page advertisement that was carried in the New York Times on March 29, 1960. Entitled "Heed Their Rising Voices," the advertisement began by stating that "As the whole world knows by now, thousands of Southern Negro students are engaged in widespread non-violent demonstrations in positive affirmation of the right to live in human dignity as [****6] guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights." It went on to charge that "in their efforts to uphold these guarantees, they are being met by [***693] an unprecedented wave of terror by those who would deny and negate that document which the whole world looks upon as setting the pattern for modern freedom. . . ." Succeeding [*257] paragraphs purported to illustrate the "wave of terror" by describing certain alleged events. The text concluded with an appeal for funds for three purposes: support of the student movement, "the struggle for the right-to-vote," and the legal defense of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., leader of the movement, against a perjury indictment then pending in Montgomery.
The text appeared over the names of 64 persons, many widely known for their [**714] activities in public affairs, religion, trade unions, and the performing arts. Below these names, and under a line reading "We in the south who are struggling [****7] daily for dignity and freedom warmly endorse this appeal," appeared the names of the four individual petitioners and of 16 other persons, all but two of whom were identified as clergymen in various Southern cities. The advertisement was signed at the bottom of the page by the "Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South," and the officers of the Committee were listed.Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
376 U.S. 254 *; 84 S. Ct. 710 **; 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 ***; 1964 U.S. LEXIS 1655 ****; 95 A.L.R.2d 1412; 1 Media L. Rep. 1527
NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN
Prior History: [****1] CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA.
Disposition: 273 Ala. 656, 144 So. 2d 25, reversed and remanded.
advertisement, libel, public official, press, official conduct, damages, actual malice, malice, newspaper, criticize, the First Amendment, retraction, courts, punitive damages, public affairs, Candidates, cases, arrested, reputation, protest, words, constitutionally protected, police commissioner, defamation, assaulted, malicious, safeguard, immunity, campus, freedom of speech
Civil Procedure, Remedies, Damages, Punitive Damages, Commercial Law (UCC), Application & Construction, Damages, Torts, Defamation, Intentional Torts, Libel, Retractions, Constitutional Law, Freedom of Speech, Public Figures, Bill of Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, General Overview, Free Press, Scope, Substantive Due Process, Qualifications for Federal Office, Public Figures, Voluntary Public Figures, Commercial Speech, Defamation Per Se, Defenses, Fair Comment & Opinion, Fighting Words, Privileges, Constitutional Privileges, Obscenity, Criminal Law & Procedure, Disruptive Conduct, Riot, Freedom of Religion, Free Exercise of Religion, Political Speech, Sanctions, Contempt, Governments, Local Governments, Administrative Boards, Miscellaneous Offenses, Espionage & Treason, Elements, Congressional Duties & Powers, State Application, Actual Malice, Political Candidates, Qualified Privileges, Evidence, Inferences & Presumptions, Presumptions, Conflicting Presumptions, Fundamental Rights, Trial by Jury in Civil Actions, Jurisdiction on Certiorari, Considerations Governing Review, State Court Decisions