Howard v. Lyons

Decision Date29 June 1959
Docket NumberNo. 57,57
Citation360 U.S. 593,3 L.Ed.2d 1454,79 S.Ct. 1331
PartiesW. E. HOWARD, Jr., Petitioner, v. Kenneth T. LYONS and Joseph S. McAteer. Re
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

See 80 S.Ct. 40.

Mr. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. Clause L. Dawson, Washington, D.C., for respondents.

Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a companion case to Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335. Petitioner Howard in 1955 was a Captain in the United States Navy and Commander of the Boston Naval Shipyard. Respondent Lyons was National Commander of the Federal Employees Veterans Association, Inc., and respondent McAteer a local officer of that Association. Both respondents were at all material times civilian employees at the Boston Naval Shipyard, and for several years before September 8, 1955, the Association was recognized by the shipyard as an employees' representative group. On that date petitioner withdrew official recognition of the Association—an action which is not here challenged.

Respondents brought suit in the Massachusetts District Court, invoking diversity jurisdiction, and making the following allegations: that on September 8, 1955, petitioner circulated a statement defaming them; that the statement purported to be an official memorandum to the Chief of the Bureau of Ships and the Chief of Navy Industrial Relations, but was released by petitioner 'outside of his official duties' to various newspapers and wire services and to the members of the Massachusetts delegation in the Congress of the United States; that in circulating the statement petitioner acted 'maliciously, wilfully, wickedly, recklessly and falsely and with malice aforesight (sic)'; and that the statement was intended to and did injure the reputation of respondents.

A copy of the statement complained of was filed with the complaint. It is in the form of an official report directed to the Chief of the Bureau of Ships and the Chief of Industrial Relations of the Department of the Navy, reciting petitioner's dissatisfaction with the activities of the Federal Employees Veterans Association at the shipyard and announcing his intention to withdraw the recognition previously accorded it.1

Petitioner answered, stating that the statement complained of was in fact an official communication, and that in sending copies of it to the Massachusetts congressional delegation he was acting within the scope of his duties and pursuant to Department of the Navy policy; and denying that outside of his official duties he had released copies of the communication to the newspapers. He thereupon moved for summary judgment, attaching to the motion his own affidavit essentially repeating the statements from his answer above summarized, and an affidavit from the Commandant of the First Naval District. That affidavit stated that the Commandant was petitioner's commanding officer; that the making of reports to the Bureau of Ships relative to any significant personnel action at the shipyard was one of petitioner's official duties; that also among those duties was the furnishing of copies of such reports to the Massachusetts congressional delegation; and that the dissemination of the report of September 8, 1955, to the newspapers had been made through official channels and approved by the acting Commandant of the First Naval District.

The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioner, holding that the uncontradicted affidavits conclusively showed that the statement complained of was published by petitioner 'in the discharge of his official duties and in relation to matters committed to him for determination,' and that it was therefore absolutely privileged. On respondents' appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the sending of the official report to petitioner's superior officers was protected by an absolute privilege, and noted that reliance on the dissemination to the newspapers had been abandoned by respondents on appeal in the face of petitioner's sworn statement that he had not been responsible for that publication. As to the publication to the Massachusetts congressional delegation, however, the court, one judge dissenting, refused to allow more than a qualified privilege, although recognizing that 'it is true that these members of Congress did have an official interest in being kept advised of important developments in labor relations at the Boston Naval Shipyard,' and that 'the Commander of the Boston Naval Shipyard might have conceived it to be a proper exercise of his official functions to see to it that the members of Congress should receive copies of such official report * * *.' Accordingly, it reversed the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for trial. 1 Cir., 250 F.2d 912, 915.

We granted certiorari to consider petitioner's contention that the Court of Appeals had erred in failing to recognize his plea of absolute privilege in respect of the publication to members of Congress. 357 U.S. 903, 78 S.Ct. 1148, 2 L.Ed.2d 1154. Respondents did not cross-petition for certiorari.

At the outset, we take note of a question which the Court of Appeals, on its view of the case, did not find it necessary to resolve—whether the extent of the privilege in respect of civil liability for statements allegedly defamatory under state law which may be claimed by officers of the Federal Government, acting in the course of their duties, is a question as to which the federal courts are bound to follow state law. We think that the very statement of the question dictates a negative answer. The authority of a federal officer to act derives from federal sources, and the rule which recognizes a privilege under appropriate circumstances as to statements made in the course of duty is one designed to promote the effective functioning of the Federal Government. No subject could be one of more peculiarly federal concern, and it would deny the very considerations which give the rule of privilege its being to leave determination of its extent to the vagaries of the laws of the several States. Cf. ClearfieldTru st Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 63 S.Ct. 573, 87 L.Ed. 838. We hold that the validity of petitioner's claim of absolute privilege must be judged by federal standards, to be formulated by the courts in the absence of legislative action by Congress.

Our decision in Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, governs this case. As has been observed, petitioner and his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
151 cases
  • Gonzalez v. Leonard
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • 28 Agosto 1980
    ...but we think that price a necessary one to pay for the greater good." Id. at 576, 79 S.Ct. at 1342. See also Howard v. Lyons, 360 U.S. 593, 79 S.Ct. 1331, 3 L.Ed.2d 1454 (1959) (under Barr, the commanding officer of the Boston Naval Shipyard had an absolute privilege, against a defamation c......
  • Green v. Cauthen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 20 Mayo 1974
    ...be free to make without fear or threat of vexatious or fictitious suits and alleged personal liability. As in Howard v. Lyons, 360 U.S. 593, 79 S.Ct. 1331, 3 L.Ed.2d 1454 (1959), defendant Hannon and his superior submit affidavits showing that the conduct plaintiff asserts to create his cla......
  • Panzarella v. Boyle
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • 22 Diciembre 1975
    ...605 (1963); Monroe v. Pape, supra, 365 U.S. at 194-195 81 S.Ct. 473, at 487-488 (Harlan, J., concurring); Howard v. Lyons, 360 U.S. 593 79 S.Ct. 1331, 3 L.Ed.2d 1454 (1959). Certainly, there is very little to be gained from the standpoint of federalism by preserving different rules of liabi......
  • Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 21 Junio 1971
    ...L.Ed.2d 605 (1963); Monroe v. Pape, supra, 365 U.S., at 194—195, 81 S.Ct., at 487—488 (Harlan, J., concurring); Howard v. Lyons, 360 U.S. 593, 79 S.Ct. 1331, 3 L.Ed. 1454 (1959). Certainly, there is very little to be gained from the standpoint of federalism by preserving different rules of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • WAS BIVENS NECESSARY?
    • United States
    • 1 Mayo 2021
    ...1813 (2021) (approving the exclusion of defamation claims from the Federal Tort Claims Act). (113) 360 U.S. 564, 568, 574 (1959). (114) 360 U.S. 593, 594, 597 (115) 373 U.S. 647, 648 (1963); id. at 650 (in reasoning that the claim itself was not federal, stating that "the facts alleged do n......

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