Why It Would Be a Mistake to Overturn New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
By Caroline Kostuch — February 11, 2022
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, is a landmark case that revolutionized the application of libel law. In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court “constitutionalized libel law and arguably saved the civil rights movement” (Wermiel). The case began when the New York Times published an article criticizing the treatment of civil rights demonstrators throughout the South. Following the publication, Montgomery police commissioner L.B. Sullivan, who was not named in the ad, sued the paper for defamation (Abrams). Although Sullivan initially prevailed in Alabama’s courts, the Supreme Court, on writ of certiorari, reshaped the narrative.
For the first time, the Court applied the First Amendment to a libel case. In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that public officials cannot collect damages for defamation without proving actual malice — that is, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Later in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), this standard was expanded to include all public figures.
The ruling not only altered libel law but also expanded press freedoms in a sweeping and necessary way. The case has been cited more than 6,000 times since 1964 (“New York Times Co. v. Sullivan”). However, the case continues to face criticism. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have voiced support for reconsidering it (Chung). While the definition of a “public figure” does need clarification in the modern era, overturning the decision would be detrimental to democracy.
Much of the criticism lies in the expansion from Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, which extended the actual malice standard to public figures. Because “public figure” lacks a strict definition, ordinary citizens pulled into the media spotlight have been denied remedies. For example, in Atlanta Journal-Constitution v. Jewell, security guard Richard Jewell was wrongly implicated in the 1996 Olympic Park bombing. Despite his innocence, Jewell’s lawsuit failed because he was deemed a public figure due to media coverage. Cases like this show why the definition of public figure must be narrowed to preserve the intent of Sullivan.
Despite criticisms, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan remains essential in preserving democracy through press freedoms. The press serves as a watchdog, informing the public and holding officials accountable. An overturn of the case “could significantly chill speech of the most important sort” (Abrams). Without this protection, journalism critical to public knowledge and democratic accountability would be at risk.
Critics argue that the decision enables today’s disinformation problem. However, most disinformation originates from obscure, under-resourced entities that are nearly impossible to sue (Andersen Jones). Overturning Sullivan would not curb misinformation but instead discourage responsible media from fact-checking public figures. This would worsen the disinformation crisis, not resolve it.
As the Court considers reevaluating New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, it is vital to remember the case’s significance. The 1964 ruling affirmed the press’s central role in democracy. Over half a century later, that role remains just as vital — and the protections established in Sullivan must not be lightly reconsidered.
Works Cited
- Abrams, Floyd. “The Supreme Court Faces a Huge Test on Libel Law.” The New York Times, 22 Oct. 2021. Link.
- Andersen Jones, RonNell. “Should the Supreme Court Reconsider NYT v. Sullivan?” Interactive Constitution, National Constitution Center, 22 July 2021. Link.
- “Atlanta Journal Constitution v. Jewell.” Findlaw, Thomson Reuters. Link.
- Chung, Andrew. “U.S. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch Question Libel Protections for Media.” Reuters, 2 July 2021. Link.
- “Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts.” Oyez. Link.
- “New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.” Casetext, 9 Mar. 1964. Link.
- Wermiel, Stephen. “New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.” The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Free Speech Center, 2009. Link.