New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

Following is the case brief for New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

Case Summary of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan:

  • Respondent Sullivan, Commissioner of Police in Montgomery, Alabama, sued the New York Times and other individual petitioners for an allegedly false advertisement involving police conduct.
  • Sullivan won a jury verdict of $500,000 without having to prove he suffered any damage, or that the Times knew the statements in the ad were false.  The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court reversed.  It held that a State cannot award a public official damages for false statements regarding official conduct unless the statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not (i.e., actual malice).

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan Case Brief

Statement of the Facts:

Respondent L.B. Sullivan was the Commissioner in charge of the Police Department of Montgomery, Alabama.  In 1960, he filed a libel suit against the New York Times Company and four African-American clergyman in connection with a full-page advertisement in the New York Times.  The text of the ad, entitled “Heed Their Rising Voices,” contained statements, some of which were inaccurate, about police action directed at students who participated in a civil rights demonstration and at Martin Luther King, Jr.  Sullivan was not mentioned by name in the ad, but he claimed that the few references to the “police” in the ad referred to him.

The case went to trial.  At trial, Sullivan made no attempt to show that he suffered any financial loss due to the ad.  The judge instructed the jury that the ad was “libelous per se,” (i.e., that malice and falsity of the ad were presumed), and that the jury does not need to distinguish between compensatory and punitive damages when awarding damages.

Procedural History:

  • The jury awarded Sullivan $500,000, which was the full amount requested in his lawsuit.
  • The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial court’s rulings in all respects.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari because of the important constitutional issues involved.

Issue and Holding:

Did the libel law of Alabama, which deemed criticism of public figures “libelous per se” and allowed a public official to sue for an advertisement without having to prove damages, violate of the First and Fourteenth Amendments?  Yes.


The judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama is reversed and remanded.

Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied:

Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, a State cannot award a public official damages for false statements regarding his official conduct without proof that the statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard of whether they were true or false (i.e., actual malice).


  • The First and Fourteenth Amendments apply to this case

As a threshold matter, the Fourteenth Amendment is implicated in this case because the use of State courts to administer Sullivan’s lawsuit constitutes “state action” for purposes of the Amendment.  Also, the First Amendment applies to the advertisement here because it conveyed information and expressed opinion.  The fact that the Times was paid for the advertisement is immaterial.

  • Actual Malice is required before a public official can sue for damages

Throughout its history, this country has stood for the proposition, embodied in the First Amendment, that debate on public issues should be uninhibited and robust, which may sometimes result in sharp attacks on public figures.  Allowing some possible falsehoods into the debate should be tolerated because a wide-open debate needs breathing room to thrive. Accordingly, a defamatory falsehood about a public official regarding his official conduct cannot result in damages to the official unless the falsehood was made with “actual malice” (i.e., knowledge of its falsity, or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not).

  • The trial result in this case must be overturned based on the lack of evidence of malice

A presumption of malice is inconsistent with the Constitution.  Accordingly, allowing a general jury award, which does not distinguish between compensatory and punitive damages, based on a presumption of malice is improper.  The jury award in this case must be overturned.

Finally, the trial evidence in this case does not prove actual malice.  First, the evidence shows that the Times did not know any of the statements in the ad were false.  Second, it is unclear that Sullivan was even the subject of the ad since he was never mentioned in it.

Concurring Opinion (Black):

A public official should not have a limited right to collect damages for libel related to official conduct.  Rather, the First Amendment should give citizens the absolute, unconditional right to criticize government officials.

Concurring Opinion (Goldberg):

The Constitution should allow a citizen speak his or her mind on matters of public concern. People should not be silenced because those in control in government think that what was said was unwise, malicious, unfair, or false.


The importance of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan cannot be overstated.  It instantly changed the libel laws throughout the country.  Also, it is still considered the clearest and most powerful defense of freedom of the press in U.S. history.

Student Resources:

Welcome all discussions


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Notify of