1966 United States Supreme Court case
| Rosenblatt v. Baer | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued October 20, 1965 Decided February 21, 1966 | |
| Full case name | Rosenblatt v. Baer |
| Citations | 383 U.S. 75 (more)86 S. Ct. 669; 15 L. Ed. 2d 597; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2847 |
| Questions presented | |
| Does a government official have to prove that defamatory statements were made in actual malice to succeed in a libel action? | |
| Holding | |
| An otherwise impersonal attack on governmental operations cannot be used to establish defamation of those administering such operations absent evidence that the implication of wrongdoing was read as specifically directed at the plaintiff, whether he is considered a public official or a member of a group responsible for governmental operations, and whether or not others were also implicated. The trial judge's instruction was erroneous to the extent that it authorized the jury to award respondent damages without regard to evidence that the asserted implication of the column was made with specific reference to him. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brennan, joined by Warren, White; Harlan (except part II); Douglas (part II) |
| Concurrence | Clark |
| Concurrence | Douglas |
| Concurrence | Stewart |
| Concur/dissent | Black, joined by Douglas |
| Concur/dissent | Harlan |
| Dissent | Fortas (jurisdictional) |
Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75 (1966), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Background
In January 1960, a newspaper column by Alfred D. Rosenblatt published in the Laconia Evening Citizen criticized the fiscal management of a county recreation area, primarily used as a ski resort and supervised by Frank P. Baer as a Belknap County government employee, stating "What happened to all the money last year? and every other year?" Baer, who had been fired as supervisor in July 1959, brought a civil libel claim in New Hampshire state court against Rosenblatt.
In April 1963, a jury in New Hampshire Superior Court awarded Baer damages in the amount of $31,500. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the award in October 1964. Between the original case and an appeal brought by Rosenblatt, the United States Supreme Court had decided New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, in which they held that a state cannot award damages to a public official for a defamatory falsehood relating to official conduct unless the official can show actual malice.
In March 1965, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. In October 1965, the case was argued before the court by Arthur H. Nighswander for the petitioner (Rosenblatt) and Stanley M. Brown for the respondent (Baer). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed an amicus brief, urging reversal of the original decision.
Opinion of the Court
In an 8–0 decision issued in February 1966, the Court reversed the decision of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. It argued that there was a probability that Baer was a public official and therefore would be required to show actual malice in the depictions presented by the newspaper. It was left to the trial judge to decide whether Baer qualified as a public official.
Associate Justice Abe Fortas stated in a jurisdictional dissent, "I would vacate the writ in this case as improvidently granted," as the original trial had occurred before New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was decided.
Resolution
The New Hampshire Supreme Court issued a ruling in December 1967 that Baer was entitled to a jury trial to determine if, in the context of the alleged libel, Baer was acting as a public official, coincident with a trial to determine merits of the libel case. However, the matter was ultimately resolved through an out of court settlement in March 1968.
Notes
- ^ "A jurisdictional dissent is when the justice disagrees with the Court's assertion or denial of jurisdiction. Such votes are counted as nonparticipations."
- The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision was issued in March 1964.
References
- "The Vote in the Case". The Supreme Court Database. Washington University Law. Retrieved October 14, 2023.
- ^ "Supreme Court Overturns N.H. Libel Case". The Portsmouth Herald. Portsmouth, New Hampshire. February 23, 1966. p. 5. Retrieved October 14, 2023 – via newspapers.com.
- ^ "Libel Case Seen Settled". Nashua Telegraph. Nashua, New Hampshire. AP. March 7, 1968. p. 20. Retrieved October 14, 2023 – via newspapers.com.
- ^ "Supreme Court To Review A Libel Verdict". Transcript-Telegram. Holyoke, Massachusetts. AP. March 16, 1965. p. 7. Retrieved October 14, 2023 – via newspapers.com.
- "Portsmouth Wins Suit Over Water". Concord Monitor. Concord, New Hampshire. October 6, 1964. p. 1. Retrieved October 14, 2023 – via newspapers.com.
- ^ "Rosenblatt v. Baer". Oyez Project. Retrieved October 14, 2023.
- ^ "ACLU Pros & Cons: Rosenblatt v. Baer". procon.org. American Civil Liberties Union. Archived from the original on December 23, 2015 – via Wayback Machine.
- Craft, Carl C. (December 30, 1967). "Supreme Court Says Frank Baer Entitled To Trial In Libel Case". Concord Monitor. Concord, New Hampshire. AP. p. 12. Retrieved October 14, 2023 – via newspapers.com.
External links
- Text of Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75 (1966) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
- Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary via YouTube