Barr v. Matteo

Citation2 L.Ed.2d 179,78 S.Ct. 204,355 U.S. 171
Decision Date09 December 1957
Docket NumberNo. 409,409
PartiesWilliam G. BARR, Petitioner, v. Linda A. MATTEO and John J. Madigan
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Doub, Messrs. Paul A. Sweeney and Bernard Cedarbaum, for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for certiorari is granted. The petition presents this question: 'Whether the absolute immunity from defamation suits accorded officials of the Government with respect to acts done within the scope of their official authority, extends to statements to the press by high policymaking officers, below cabinet or comparable rank, concerning matters committed by law to their control or supervision.'

In the District Court and the Court of Appeals the litigation was not so confined. By his motion for a directed verdict and requested instructions petitioner also presented to the District Court the defense of qualified privilege. On appeal to the Court of Appeals petitioner, in his brief, raised only the question of absolute immunity, but on reconsideration he urged the court also to pass on the defense of qualified privilege. This that court refused to do on the ground that petitioner, because of the position he had initially taken on the appeal, had waived the defense. In so holding, the court relied on its Rule 17(c)(7), 28 U.S.C.A., requiring an appellant to set forth in his brief a statement of the points on which he intends to rely, and Rule 17(i), which provides that 'Points not presented according to the rules of the court, will be disregarded, though the court, at its option, may notice and pass upon a plain error not pointed out or relied upon.'

The scope of the litigation in the Court of Appeals cannot lessen this Court's duty to confine itself to the proper exercise of its jurisdiction and the appropriate scope of the judicial review. Thus, an advisory opinion cannot be extracted from a federal court by agreement of the parties, see Swift & Co. v. Hocking Valley R. Co., 243 U.S. 281, 289, 37 S.Ct. 287, 289, 61 L.Ed. 722, and no matter how much they may favor the settlement of an important question of constitutional law, broad considerations of the appropriate exercise of judicial power prevent such determinations unless actually compelled by the litigation before the Court. United States v. C.I.O., 335 U.S. 106, 110, 68 S.Ct. 1349, 1351, 92 L.Ed. 1849. Likewise, 'Courts should avoid passing on questions of public law even short of constitutionality that are not immediately pressing. Many of the same reasons are present which impel them to abstain from adjudicating constitutional claims against a statute before it effectively and presently impinges on such claims.' Eccles v. Peoples Bank, of Lakewood Village, 333 U.S. 426, 432, 68 S.Ct. 641, 644, 645, 92 L.Ed. 784. Expecially in a case involving on the one hand protection of the reputation of individuals, and on the other the interest of the public in the fullest freedom of officials to make disclosures on matters within the scope of their public...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Butler v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • November 8, 1973
    ...words are involved, the several categories of privilege in the law of libel may be relevant, as was noted in Barr v. Matteo, 355 U.S. 171, 173, 78 S.Ct. 204, 2 L.Ed.2d 179 (1957).24 The threshold questions as to the availability of the immunity defense are often unanswerable without a full ......
  • Butz v. Economou
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1978
    ...exceeded his authority. Barr. v. Matteo, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 319, 244 F.2d 767 (1957). This Court vacated that judgment, 355 U.S. 171, 78 S.Ct. 204, 2 L.Ed.2d 179 (1957), directing the Court of Appeals to consider the qualified-privilege question. This the Court of Appeals did, 103 U.S.App.D.C......
  • Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Day
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1959
    ...Appeals' judgment, and remanded the case 'with directions to pass upon petitioner's claim of a qualified privilege.' 355 U.S. 171, 173, 78 S.Ct. 204, 206, 2 L.Ed.2d 179. On remand the Court of Appeals held that the press release was protected by a qualified privilege, but that there was evi......
  • Berkemer v. Carty
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1984
    ...power prevent such determinations unless actually compelled by the litigation before the Court." Barr v. Matteo, 355 U.S. 171, 172, 78 S.Ct. 204, 205, 2 L.Ed.2d 179 (1957) (per curiam). Indeed, this principle of restraint grows in importance the more problematic the constitutional issue is.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • THE REMAND POWER AND THE SUPREME COURT'S ROLE.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 96 No. 1, November 2020
    • November 1, 2020
    ...(357) Beer v. United Slates, 696 F.3d 1174, 1176 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (en banc). (358) United States v. Beer, 569 U.S. 947, 947 (2013). (359) 355 U.S. 171, 171-72 (1957) (per curiam). (360) Id. (361) Id. at 171. (362) Id. at 172-73 (quoting Eccles v. Peoples Bank, 333 U.S. 426, 432 (1948)). (36......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT