376 U.S. 254 (1964)
L. B. Sullivan is one of three elected Commissioners of the City of Montgomery, Alabama.1 He has duties including supervision of the Police Department.2 He brought this civil libel action against the New York Times Company and four individual petitioners who were Alabama clergymen.3 The suit sought $500,000 in damages based on a full-page advertisement entitled "Heed Their Rising Voices" that appeared in the New York Times on March 29, 1960.4 A jury in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County awarded Sullivan the full amount claimed against all petitioners.5 The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment.6
The advertisement was signed by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South.7 It described widespread non-violent demonstrations by Southern Negro students and an unprecedented wave of terror against them.8 Two paragraphs formed the basis of the claim.9 One alleged that after students sang on the State Capitol steps their leaders were expelled, truckloads of police ringed the Alabama State College Campus, and the dining hall was padlocked to starve students into submission.10 The other stated that Southern violators had bombed Dr. King's home, assaulted him, arrested him seven times, and charged him with perjury.11 The text appeared over the names of 64 persons.12 It was endorsed by the individual petitioners among others.13
Sullivan contended that the references to police referred to him in his supervisory capacity.14 Six Montgomery residents testified that they read the statements as referring to him.15 However, several statements were inaccurate.16 The students sang the National Anthem rather than "My Country, 'Tis of Thee."17 The expulsions were for a different incident.18 The dining hall was not padlocked.19 Dr. King had been arrested only four times.20 The bombings occurred before Sullivan's tenure with police efforts to apprehend the perpetrators.21
The Times published the advertisement for approximately $4800.22 It acted upon an order from a New York advertising agency.23 The agency provided a letter from A. Philip Randolph certifying authorization.24 The Times made no efforts to confirm its accuracy against its own news files.25
Sullivan served written demands for retraction on the petitioners pursuant to Alabama law.26 None of the individual petitioners responded as they had not authorized use of their names.27 The Times did not retract.28 It published a retraction only upon demand by Governor John Patterson after learning more facts.29 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to the separate petitions of the individual petitioners and the Times due to the importance of the constitutional issues involved.30
Whether 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?31
The constitutional guarantees require a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice.32 Actual malice means knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.33
Yes. Alabama law permitted recovery for libel per se without requiring proof of actual malice, presuming falsity, malice, and damages from the bare fact of publication.34 Sullivan is a public official as one of three elected Commissioners of the City of Montgomery with supervision of the Police Department.35 The advertisement concerned official conduct regarding student demonstrations and arrests in Montgomery.36
The Times published the advertisement for approximately $4800 relying on a certification letter from A. Philip Randolph and the reputation of sponsors without checking its own news files.37 The individual petitioners had not authorized use of their names and were unaware of any errors in the text.38 Application of the Alabama rule to these facts abridges the freedoms of speech and press guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.39
The constitutional protections for speech and press do limit a State's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct.40
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Douglas
Justice Black concurs in the reversal.41 He bases his vote on the belief that the First and Fourteenth Amendments completely prohibit a State from exercising the power to award damages to public officials against critics of their official conduct.42 The requirement that malice be proved provides at best an evanescent protection for the right critically to discuss public affairs.43
The Constitution grants the press an absolute, unconditional constitutional right to publish criticisms of the Montgomery agencies and officials.44
Whether the rule of law applied by the Alabama courts is constitutionally deficient for failure to provide the safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press that are required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?45
Yes. The Alabama rule treated the statements as libelous per se if they tended to injure reputation or bring into public contempt and allowed recovery without proof of pecuniary injury.48 This creates a pall of fear and timidity upon those who would give voice to public criticism.49 The $500,000 judgment without proof of actual pecuniary loss was one thousand times greater than the maximum fine under Alabama criminal libel law.50
Such a rule dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate on matters of public concern.51
The rule of law applied by the Alabama courts is constitutionally deficient for failure to provide the safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press that are required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.52
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Douglas
Justice Goldberg concurs in the result.53 He believes the Constitution affords an absolute, unconditional privilege to criticize official conduct.54 The right to speak one's mind about public officials should not depend upon a jury's probing of the speaker's motivation.55
The theory of our Constitution is that every citizen may speak his mind on matters of public concern and may not be barred from speaking because those in control of government think that what is said is unwise, unfair, false, or malicious.56
Whether the evidence presented in this case is constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment for respondent?57
Yes. There was no evidence that the individual petitioners were aware of erroneous statements or reckless in that regard. For the Times the evidence showed at most negligence in failing to check the advertisement against its files as it relied on the good reputation of sponsors and the certification letter.60 The failure to retract upon Sullivan's demand does not show malice because the Times had reasonable doubt whether the advertisement referred to him at all.61
The evidence was also insufficient to show the statements were made of and concerning Sullivan as the witnesses based their association solely on his official position rather than any direct reference in the text.62
The evidence presented in this case is constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment for respondent.63