Siegert v. Gilley - 500 U.S. 226, 111 S. Ct. 1789 (1991)

Rule:

Defamation, by itself, is a tort actionable under the laws of most states, but not a constitutional deprivation.

Facts:

Petitioner Frederick Siegert learned that his failure to secure employment in his chosen field was due in large part to a reference letter written by his supervisor, respondent, Melvin Gilley. Petitioner claimed that the respondent’s letter, containing derogatory statements regarding petitioner’s work history, was a malicious and bad faith publishing of a defamatory per se statement, which the respondent knew to be untrue or which he wrote with reckless disregard as to whether it was true or not. The petitioner contended that this was an infringement of his liberty interest, in violation of the protections afforded by the Due Process Clause of U.S. Const. amend. V. The district court found petitioner’s allegations to be sufficient. However, on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case. According to the Court of Appeals, the petitioner failed to overcome respondent’s assertion of qualified immunity, under the Court of Appeals' heightened pleading standard requiring allegations of specific, direct evidence of such illicit intent. Certiorari was granted. 

Issue:

By allegedly publishing a defamatory per se statement, did the supervisor infringe on the petitioner’s liberty interests? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court affirmed the dismissal of petitioner’s suit, holding that the petitioner failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right -- indeed, of any constitutional right at all -- since, under Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 708-709, 47 L. Ed. 2d 405, 96 S. Ct. 1155, injury to reputation by itself was not a protected "liberty" interest. Defamation was a tort action, not a constitutional deprivation. Therefore, petitioner failed to satisfy the necessary threshold inquiry in the determination of a qualified immunity claim. Thus, although the Court of Appeals reached the correct result, it should not have assumed without deciding the necessary preliminary issue and then proceeded to examine the sufficiency of petitioner’s allegations. Petitioner’s claim failed at an analytically earlier stage of the inquiry.