New York Times Company v. Sullivan, Nos. 39

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBRENNAN
Citation84 S. Ct. 710,376 U.S. 254,11 L. Ed. 2d 686,95 A.L.R.2d 1412
Docket NumberNos. 39,40
Decision Date09 March 1964
PartiesThe NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Petitioner, v. L. B. SULLIVAN. Ralph D. ABERNATHY et al., Petitioners, v. L. B. SULLIVAN

376 U.S. 254
84 S.Ct. 710
11 L.Ed.2d 686
The NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Petitioner,

v.

L. B. SULLIVAN. Ralph D. ABERNATHY et al., Petitioners, v. L. B. SULLIVAN.

Nos. 39, 40.
Argued Jan. 6 and 7, 1964.
Decided March 9, 1964.

[Syllabus from pages 254-255 intentionally omitted]

Page 255

William P. Rogers and Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., New York City, for petitioner in No. 40.

Herbert Wechsler, New York City, for petitioners in No. 39.

M. Roland Nachman, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., for respondent.

Page 256

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 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 indiv dual 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, 1960.1 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 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 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

Page 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 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 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.

Of the 10 paragraphs of text in the advertisement, the third and a portion of the sixth were the basis of respondent's claim of libel. They read as follows:

Third paragraph:

'In Montgomery, Alabama, after students sang 'My Country, 'Tis of Thee' on the State Capitol steps, their leaders were expelled from school, and truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear-gas ringed the Alabama State College Campus. When the entire student body protested to state authorities by refusing to re-register, their dining hall was padlocked in an attempt to starve them into submission.'

Sixth paragraph:

'Again and again the Southern violators have answered Dr. King's peaceful protests with intimidation and violence. They have bombed his home almost killing his wife and child. They have

Page 258

assaulted his person. They have arrested him seven times—for 'speeding,' 'loitering' and similar 'offenses.' And now they have charged him with 'perjury'—a felony under which they could imprison him for ten years. * * *'

Although neither of these statements mentions respondent by name, he contended that the word 'police' in the third paragraph referred to him as the Montgomery Commissioner who supervised the Police Department, so that he was being accused of 'ringing' the campus with police. He further claimed that the paragraph would be read as imputing to the police, and hence to him, the padlocking of the dining hall in order to starve the students into submission.2 As to the sixth paragraph, he contended that since arrests are ordinarily made by the police, the statement 'They have arrested (Dr. King) seven times' would be read as referring to him; he further contended that the 'They' who did the arresting would be equated with the 'They' who committed the other described acts and with the 'Southern violators.' Thus, he argued, the paragraph would be read as accusing the Montgomery police, and hence him, of answering Dr. King's protests with 'intimidation and violence,' bombing his home, assaulting his person, and charging him with perjury. Respondent and six other Montgomery residents testified that they read some or all of the statements as referring to him in his capacity as Commissioner.

It is uncontroverted that some of the statements contained in the two paragraphs were not accurate descriptions of events which occurred in Montgomery. Although Negro students staged a demonstration on the State Capital steps, they sang the National Anthem and not 'My

Page 259

Country, 'Tis of Thee.' Although nine students were expelled by the State Board of Education, this was not for leading the demonstration at the Capitol, but for demanding service at a lunch counter in the Montgomery County Courthouse on another day. Not the entire student body, but most of it, had protested the expulsion, not by refusing to register, but by boycotting classes on a single day; virtually all the students did register for the ensuing semester. The campus dining hall was not padlocked on any occasion, and the only students who may have been barred from eating there were the few who had neither signed a preregistration application nor requested temporary meal tickets. Although the police were deployed near the campus in large numbers on three occasions, they did not at any time 'ring' the campus, and they were not called to the campus in connection with the demonstration on the State Capitol steps, as the third paragraph implied. Dr. King had not been arrested seven times, but only four; and although he claimed to have been assaulted some years earlier in connection with his arrest for loitering outside a courtroom, one of the officers who made the arrest denied that there was such an assault.

On the premise that the charges in the sixth paragraph could be read as referring to him, respondent was allowed to prove that he had not participated in the events described. Although Dr. King's home had in fact been bombed twice when his wife and child were there, both of these occasions antedated respondent's tenure as Commissioner, and the police were not only not implicated in the bombings, but had made every effort to apprehend those who were. Three of Dr. King's four arrests took place before respondent became Commissioner. Although Dr. King had in fact been indicted (he was subsequently acquitted) on two counts of perjury, each of which carried a possible five-year sentence, respondent had nothing to do with procuring the indictment.

Page 260

Respondent made no effort to prove that he suffered actual pecuniary loss as a result of the alleged libel.3 One of his witnesses, a former employer, testified that if he had believed the statements, he doubted whether he 'would want to be associated with anybody who would be a party to such things that are stated in that ad,' and that he would not re-employ respondent if he believed 'that he allowed the Police Department to do the things that the paper say he did.' But neither this witness nor any of the others testified that he had actually believed the statements in their supposed reference to respondent.

The cost of the advertisement was approximately $4800, and it was published by the Times upon an order from a New York advertising agency acting for the signatory Committee. The agency submitted the advertisement with a letter from A. Philip Randolph, Chairman of the Committee, certifying that the persons whose names appeared on the advertisement had given their permission. Mr. Randolph was known to the Times' Advertising Acceptability Department as a responsible person, and in accepting the letter as sufficient proof of authorization it followed its established practice. There was testimony that the copy of the advertisement which accompanied the letter listed only the 64 names appearing under the text, and that the statement, 'We in the south * * * warmly endorse this appeal,' and the list of names thereunder, which included those of the individual petitioners, were subsequently added when the first proof of the advertisement was received. Each of the individual petitioners testified that he had not authorized the use of his name, and that he had been unaware of its use until receipt of respondent's demand for a retraction. The manager of the Advertising Ac-

Page 261

ceptability Department testified that he had approved the advertisement for publication because he knew nothing to cause him to believe that anything in it was false, and because it bore the endorsement of 'a number of people who are well known and whose reputation' he 'had no reason to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4531 practice notes
  • Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox, No. 87-2013
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1989
    ...cases). Some of our most valued forms of fully protected speech are uttered for a profit. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (per curiam). In addition to being clear ......
  • Frissell v. Rizzo, No. 78-1863
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • February 20, 1979
    ...upon legitimate press activity protected by the First Amendment is a constitutional commonplace. E. g., New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 277, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). It is not hard to appreciate that the government's withdrawal of advertising from a newspaper would hav......
  • Stevens v. Town of Snow Hill, No. 4:19-CV-156-D
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Eastern District of North Carolina
    • June 8, 2021
    ...the party has "knowledge that it was false" or acts with "reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964); see Gilmore, 370 F. Supp. 3d at 671. "When a person thrusts [herself] into the forefront of public debate, [she] is treated ......
  • INTERN. SOC. FOR KRISHNA, ETC. v. Barber, No. 77 CV 328.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • August 25, 1980
    ...1780, 1787, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971); Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 89 S.Ct. 1354, 22 L.Ed.2d 572 (1969); New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269-270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 720, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 71 S.Ct. 325, 95 L.Ed. 267 (1951); Cantwell v. Connecti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4526 cases
  • Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox, No. 87-2013
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1989
    ...cases). Some of our most valued forms of fully protected speech are uttered for a profit. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (per curiam). In addition to being clear ......
  • Frissell v. Rizzo, No. 78-1863
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • February 20, 1979
    ...upon legitimate press activity protected by the First Amendment is a constitutional commonplace. E. g., New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 277, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). It is not hard to appreciate that the government's withdrawal of advertising from a newspaper would hav......
  • Stevens v. Town of Snow Hill, No. 4:19-CV-156-D
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Eastern District of North Carolina
    • June 8, 2021
    ...the party has "knowledge that it was false" or acts with "reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964); see Gilmore, 370 F. Supp. 3d at 671. "When a person thrusts [herself] into the forefront of public debate, [she] is treated ......
  • INTERN. SOC. FOR KRISHNA, ETC. v. Barber, No. 77 CV 328.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • August 25, 1980
    ...1780, 1787, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971); Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 89 S.Ct. 1354, 22 L.Ed.2d 572 (1969); New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269-270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 720, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 71 S.Ct. 325, 95 L.Ed. 267 (1951); Cantwell v. Connecti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Lawyers Beware: Criticizing Judges Can Be Hazardous To Your Professional Health
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 3, 2022
    ...of Professional Conduct 8.2(a), which echoes the "actual malice" standard in defamation cases announced in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) ("A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concer......
  • Lawyers Beware: Criticizing Judges Can Be Hazardous To Your Professional Health
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 3, 2022
    ...of Professional Conduct 8.2(a), which echoes the "actual malice" standard in defamation cases announced in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) ("A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concer......
4 books & journal articles
  • SEARCHING FOR TRUTH IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S TRUE THREAT DOCTRINE.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 120 Nbr. 4, February 2022
    • February 1, 2022
    ...[perma.cc/WV4T-PJUS]. (5.) See Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969); N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). "Speech" and "statements" are used loosely throughout this Note to describe many different types of expression, including written material and even expressi......
  • THE DUTY NOT TO CONTINUE DISTRIBUTING YOUR OWN LIBELS.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 Nbr. 1, November 2021
    • November 1, 2021
    ...in many cases (for instance, where it's clear that the original statement wasn't culpable). See, e.g., N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 286 (1964); Ross v. Gallant, Farrow & Co., 551 P.2d 79, 81 (Ariz. Ct. App. Some statutes provide that a prompt retraction can preclude the def......
  • THE MYTH OF THE CHILLING EFFECT.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Vol. 35 Nbr. 1, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...effect as it related to speech in 1978). (19.) Id. at 693. (20.) This is reminiscent of the premise of N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), in which the Court restricted the ability of public officials to sue for (21.) Schauer, supra note 2, at 689 ("The very essence of a chilli......
  • "OUR IDENTITY IS OFTEN WHAT'S TRIGGERING SURVEILLANCE": HOW GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE OF #BLACKLIVESMATTER VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.
    • United States
    • Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal Vol. 44 Nbr. 2, September 2018
    • September 22, 2018
    ...wrongdoing--threatens to discourage them from speaking, associating, and expressing as is their right under the First Amendment."). (17) 376 U.S. 254 (18) Id. at 270 (quoting Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-76, 47 S. Ct. 641 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring)). (19) Id. at 256-58. (......

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