Rosenblatt v. Baer
15 L. Ed. 2d 597 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
Facts
Respondent, a former Supervisor of the Belknap County Recreation Area, sued a newspaper columnist for libel after the columnist published an article implying financial mismanagement during respondent's tenure. A jury awarded damages, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed, despite the intervening decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The column did not explicitly name the respondent but questioned the handling of funds under the previous management.
Issue
Can a public official recover damages for defamation based on an impersonal attack on governmental operations that casts suspicion on a small group, without proving that the statement was specifically directed at them or published with actual malice?
Holding
The judgment is reversed and remanded because the jury instructions were constitutionally erroneous. The instruction allowing recovery based on an imputation of impropriety to a small group, without requiring specific reference to the plaintiff, was impermissible. Furthermore, the respondent was likely a 'public official' and thus required to prove actual malice, which the original instructions did not mandate.
Rule
An impersonal attack on governmental operations cannot establish libel of those administering the operations unless there is evidence that the attack was specifically directed at the plaintiff. The 'public official' designation, requiring proof of actual malice for defamation, applies to government employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over governmental affairs.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.