Barr v. Matteo et al.
360 U.S. 564 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal executive official is absolutely immune from liability in a defamation suit for statements made within the outer perimeter of their line of duty, even if the statements were made with malice.
Facts:
- John J. Madigan and Linda Matteo, employees at the Office of Housing Expediter, proposed a plan to use funds designated for terminal-leave to pay employees who would be temporarily discharged and then rehired.
- William G. Barr, then the agency's General Manager, opposed the plan, believing it violated the spirit of the Thomas Amendment, a federal statute.
- The agency head rejected the plan for general use but permitted its voluntary use for approximately fifty employees, including Madigan and Matteo.
- Several years later, after Barr had become Acting Director of the successor agency, Senator John J. Williams publicly criticized the plan on the Senate floor, referencing a letter sent over Barr's name that Madigan had drafted.
- The Senator's speech generated widespread, negative press coverage and numerous media inquiries to the agency.
- In response, Barr served suspension notices to Madigan and Matteo and simultaneously directed the issuance of a press release.
- The press release announced the suspensions and stated Barr's long-standing opposition to the plan, which he characterized as violating the spirit of the law.
- Madigan and Matteo alleged that this press release defamed them and was motivated by malice.
Procedural Posture:
- John J. Madigan and Linda Matteo sued William G. Barr for libel in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The trial court rejected Barr's defense of privilege, and a jury returned a verdict for Madigan and Matteo.
- Barr (petitioner) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which affirmed the judgment, holding that Barr had acted outside his line of duty.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the appellate judgment, and remanded the case for the Court of Appeals to consider Barr's claim of a qualified privilege.
- On remand, the Court of Appeals held that while a qualified privilege applied, there was sufficient evidence of malice to warrant a new trial, and it remanded the case to the District Court.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari for a second time to resolve the question of absolute privilege.
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 the absolute privilege from defamation suits for federal executive officials extend to a press release issued by an acting agency head that is within the outer perimeter of his official duties, even if the release was allegedly issued with malice?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes. A federal official is entitled to absolute privilege for statements made within the outer perimeter of their duties. The privilege is not based on the official's rank but on the function they are performing and its relation to matters committed by law to their control. This immunity is essential to ensure that officials can exercise their duties fearlessly and effectively, without the constant dread of retaliatory lawsuits that would consume time and energy, and dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute. In this case, Barr, as the acting head of an important government agency, was responding to severe public criticism that challenged the integrity of his agency's operations. Issuing a press release to state the agency's position and announce personnel action was an appropriate exercise of the discretion inherent in his high-level, policy-making role and fell within the 'outer perimeter' of his line of duty, thus rendering the privilege applicable despite allegations of malice.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. The press release is protected. The effective functioning of a free government depends on an informed public opinion, which requires that public officials be free to discuss the quality of government service. Barr was well-qualified to inform the public and Congress about his agency, and subjecting him to libel suits for his criticisms would unduly restrain him. So long as the press release was not unauthorized and related to matters committed to his supervision, he should be immune from suit under state or District of Columbia libel laws.
Dissenting - Mr. Chief Justice Warren
No. The absolute privilege should not be extended to cover this situation. The majority's 'outer perimeter' test is vague and provides no clear standard to guide executive conduct, creating a presumption of immunity that is difficult for a plaintiff to overcome. This decision annihilates the individual's interest in redress for defamation and fails to properly balance it against the public interest. Extending absolute privilege to lower-level officials for public statements threatens the equally important public interest in fostering open criticism of government, as it will deter citizens from speaking out for fear of being libeled with impunity by the very officials they criticize.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
No. Only a qualified privilege is necessary to protect government officials. A qualified privilege would shield an official from liability for honest mistakes while still allowing redress for a citizen who was defamed with actual malice. The majority's rationale—that the fear of litigation would 'dampen the ardor' of officials—is an insufficient justification for abolishing a citizen's right to recovery. Such a major policy decision, which balances large societal imponderables, is better left to Congress, which could devise less drastic solutions than granting sweeping immunity.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stewart
No. The issuance of the press release was not within the petitioner's line of duty. While the legal principles articulated by the majority are sound, they were misapplied to these facts. The press release did not serve any agency function but was instead a personally motivated effort by Barr to defend his own individual reputation. Because this action was taken to protect himself rather than the agency, it fell beyond the 'outer perimeter of petitioner’s line of duty' and should not be protected by absolute privilege.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded the doctrine of absolute immunity for federal executive officials, extending the protection previously afforded to cabinet-level officers in Spalding v. Vilas to officials of lower rank. The court established the 'outer perimeter' test, shifting the focus from an official's title to the functional relationship between their duties and the challenged action. This holding prioritizes the policy of promoting vigorous and unintimidated government administration over the individual's right to redress for reputational harm, making it substantially more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in defamation claims against federal officials.
Unlock the full brief for Barr v. Matteo et al.