New York Times v.

Sullivan
Supreme Court of the United States
376 U.S. 254 (1964)
Vote: 9-0
Majority: Brennan, Warren, Clark, Harlan, Stewart, White, Black, Goldberg, Douglas
Dissenting: N/A/
Non-Participating: N/A

Facts: The New York Times published an advertisement in 1960 which blatantly criticized the
Montgomery, Alabama, police department. Civil rights activists paid for the ad to assist in
raising funds for civil rights leaders such as M.L.K Jr. There were multiple descriptions in the
incorrect article, and one of the persons in charge of the police, L.B. Sullivan, took offense to the
ad and would eventually sue the Times for libel. Under the local laws, Libel needed to prove his
reputation was damaged and incorrect information published. The trial court jury awarded him
$500,000. The Supreme Court would dismiss the damage award and reverse the ruling.

Statutes or Provisions in Question:

1. Alabama’s Libel Law
2. The First Amendment’s Freedom of speech/press clause
Legal Question:
1. Was Alabama’s Libel law in violation of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech or
freedom of press protections?
Holding: No

Reasoning: The majority of the court’s opinion claimed that a state could not reward a public
official damage for an article with incorrect information unless Sullivan could prove actual
malice. The Constitution safeguarded statements honestly made to preserve freedom of
expression and the press. Sullivan would have needed to confirm that the Times article was about
him and not the government policy, along with proving that the defendant’s testament was false
about publishing what they thought was correct information.

Importance: This case would go on to protect the future of news reporters from libel and
defamation lawsuits allowing journalists to continue publishing articles as long they were acting
in good faith. Another critical factor is that libel and slander were up to state laws before this
case.

Other notable information: Although all nine justices supported the court ruling, only five judges
signed off on the verdict. This case allowed for the widening of parameters of free speech in the
press for future issues. The states would also cover the jurisdiction for cases like this in the future
if the case never happened. In recent years, modern justices have questioned New York Times v.
Sullivan. It is still possible for public figures to win cases regarding defamation under this ruling
also, such as a recent case Johnny Debt.