Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court must consider the substantive evidentiary standard of proof that would apply at a trial on the merits.
Facts:
- In October 1981, The Investigator magazine, published by petitioner Jack Anderson, published two articles portraying respondent Liberty Lobby, Inc., and its founder Willis Carto as neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist, and Fascist.
- The articles alleged connections between Liberty Lobby and various controversial figures and ideologies.
- Charles Bermant, the author of the articles, submitted an affidavit stating that he had spent substantial time researching from a wide variety of sources and believed the published facts to be truthful and accurate.
- Liberty Lobby alleged that some 28 statements and 2 illustrations were false and derogatory.
- Liberty Lobby asserted that in preparing the articles, Bermant had relied on sources that were patently unreliable and that the publisher had failed to adequately verify the information.
- Liberty Lobby presented evidence that one of the magazine's editors told a superior before publication that the articles were "terrible" and "ridiculous."
Procedural Posture:
- Liberty Lobby, Inc. and Willis Carto filed a diversity libel suit against Jack Anderson and others in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (trial court).
- After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
- The District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that the author's research and reliance on numerous sources precluded a finding of actual malice.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the 'clear and convincing' evidence requirement for actual malice is irrelevant at the summary judgment stage.
- The defendants (petitioners in the Supreme Court) sought and were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court, when ruling on a motion for summary judgment in a public figure libel case, need to consider the 'clear and convincing' evidence standard for proving actual malice?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes. A court ruling on a motion for summary judgment must be guided by the substantive evidentiary standard that applies to the case. The inquiry under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 is whether the evidence presented is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. This determination inherently requires the court to consider the applicable burden of proof. In a libel case involving a public figure, where the First Amendment requires the plaintiff to prove actual malice with 'convincing clarity,' the summary judgment inquiry is whether a reasonable jury could find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. This standard mirrors the standard for a directed verdict, where the judge must determine if the evidence is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. This approach does not usurp the jury's role; the court does not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations, but rather determines whether a genuine issue exists for trial under the governing evidentiary prism.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
No. The Court's analysis is deeply flawed and invites trial courts to weigh evidence, a function reserved for the jury. The majority's holding sends conflicting signals by stating judges should not weigh evidence but must also assess its 'quantum and quality' and 'caliber or quantity.' This new standard will transform summary judgment from an expedited procedure into a full-blown paper trial, potentially infringing on the constitutional right to a jury trial. The proper inquiry at the summary judgment stage is simply whether the plaintiff has presented evidence, either directly or by permissible inference, that supports all elements of the claim to establish a prima facie case. Whether that evidence is ultimately 'clear and convincing' is a determination for the factfinder at trial, not for the judge on a pretrial motion.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No. The Court mistakenly engrafts a substantive evidentiary standard onto the procedural requirements of Rule 56, creating special procedural protections for libel defendants contrary to precedent. This new rule will cause confusion and inconsistency, as the Court fails to provide practical guidance on how it should be applied. In cases involving testimonial evidence, credibility is always a jury question, making it unclear how the heightened standard would change the outcome of a summary judgment motion. The distinction between 'preponderance of the evidence' and 'clear and convincing evidence' is often too thin for day-to-day use in a procedural context and will do 'great mischief with little corresponding benefit.'
Analysis:
This decision significantly enhanced the power of summary judgment as a tool for dismissing lawsuits before trial, particularly in cases with heightened evidentiary burdens like defamation and fraud. By requiring trial courts to view the evidence through the 'prism' of the substantive standard of proof, the Court made it harder for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment without strong, probative evidence. This ruling provides greater protection for defendants, especially media outlets in libel cases, against the high costs of litigation, but critics argue it risks prematurely terminating meritorious claims and encroaching on the jury's role as the primary fact-finder.
