Garrison v. Louisiana
13 L. Ed. 2d 125 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
Facts
The District Attorney of Orleans Parish held a press conference disparaging the judicial conduct of eight judges, accusing them of inefficiency, laziness, and being influenced by racketeers. He was subsequently convicted of criminal defamation under Louisiana law, which the state's Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting his First Amendment challenge. The Louisiana statute allowed punishment for true statements made with 'actual malice' (ill-will) and false statements not made with a reasonable belief of their truth.
Issue
Does the constitutional standard of 'actual malice' established in *New York Times v. Sullivan* for civil libel of public officials also apply to criminal defamation cases involving criticism of public officials' conduct?
Holding
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the *New York Times v. Sullivan* 'actual malice' standard applies to criminal defamation of public officials. The Louisiana statute, as interpreted, incorporated constitutionally invalid standards for punishing speech critical of public officials.
Rule
The constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression require that a state may not impose criminal sanctions for defamation of a public official regarding their official conduct unless the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Truth cannot be subject to criminal sanctions where public affairs are discussed, and only false statements made with this high degree of awareness of their probable falsity can be punished.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.