Christiana Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Consolidated with 19-7133 (2021)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To state a plausible claim for defamation, a public official plaintiff must allege sufficient facts showing the publisher acted with 'actual malice,' meaning with knowledge of the statement's falsity or with reckless disregard for its truth. Allegations that a publisher had a preconceived storyline, failed to credit vehement denials, harbored ill-will, or made minor omissions are insufficient, individually or collectively, to meet this demanding standard at the pleading stage.

Facts:

Christiana Tah, Liberia’s Minister of Justice, and Randolph McClain, CEO of the National Oil Company of Liberia (NOCAL), were members of the Hydrocarbon Technical Committee (HTC).
The HTC successfully negotiated the sale of an oil license for a plot known as 'Block 13' to ExxonMobil.
Following the deal, Liberia's President directed NOCAL’s board to pay bonuses to those responsible for the successful negotiation.
After concluding the bonuses were legally permissible under Liberian law, NOCAL's board authorized approximately $500,000 in payments.
Each member of the HTC, including Tah and McClain, received a $35,000 bonus, while other NOCAL employees, including drivers and custodial workers, received smaller bonuses.
Global Witness, an international human rights organization, investigated the deal and published a report titled 'Catch me if you can.'
The report described the $35,000 payments as 'unusual, large,' put the word 'bonuses' in scare quotes, and implied they were bribes paid in connection with the deal.
Before publication, Global Witness contacted HTC members, stating its belief that the payments were 'most likely a bribe.' Several members, including Tah, responded with denials, explaining the payments were authorized bonuses for a successful deal; the report included excerpts of these denials.

Procedural Posture:

Christiana Tah and Randolph McClain sued Global Witness Publishing, Inc. for defamation and false light invasion of privacy in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (a federal trial court).
Global Witness filed a special motion to dismiss under the D.C. anti-SLAPP statute and a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The district court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, holding the D.C. statute does not apply in federal court.
The district court granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, ruling that the complaint failed to plausibly allege actual malice.
Tah and McClain, as appellants, appealed the dismissal of their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Global Witness, as appellee, filed a cross-appeal challenging the district court's denial of its anti-SLAPP motion.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do allegations that a publisher began an investigation with a preconceived theory, received and published denials from the subjects, harbored ill-will, and omitted certain facts suffice to plausibly state a claim that the publisher acted with actual malice in a defamation suit brought by public officials?

Opinions:

Majority - Tatel, J.

No. The allegations are insufficient to plausibly state a claim that Global Witness acted with actual malice. The First Amendment requires public officials to meet the 'daunting' actual malice standard, which necessitates pleading facts that plausibly show the publisher acted with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth, meaning it 'entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.' Tah and McClain's allegations fail to meet this high bar. First, beginning an investigation with a 'preconceived storyline' or suspicion does not show malice, as this is common in investigative journalism. Second, a publisher's failure to credit denials is not evidence of malice, as 'denials are so commonplace' and these specific denials lacked readily verifiable evidence that would create 'obvious reasons to doubt' the report's implication. Third, evidence of ill-will or an adversarial stance is insufficient on its own to support a finding of actual malice. Finally, the omission of another official's name from the list of recipients does not plausibly suggest a reckless disregard for the truth. Therefore, the complaint fails to state a plausible claim for defamation or false light.

Dissenting in part - Silberman, J.

Yes. The complaint plausibly alleges actual malice because the report's defamatory implication was inherently improbable and there were obvious reasons to doubt its veracity. The report strongly implied that Exxon was the briber, yet it contained a crucial admission: 'Global Witness has no evidence that Exxon directed NOCAL to pay Liberian officials, nor that Exxon knew such payments were occurring.' Publishing a bribery accusation while admitting to having no evidence of the briber's involvement makes the story 'inherently improbable,' which is a basis for inferring actual malice under Supreme Court precedent. Furthermore, Global Witness received six specific, fact-based denials from individuals involved, which provided 'obvious reasons to doubt' the bribery narrative. The majority improperly dismisses these points and invents a new, unsupported theory that NOCAL, not Exxon, was the briber, which is procedurally illegitimate. The dissent also argues at length that the New York Times v. Sullivan 'actual malice' standard should be overruled as a policy-driven decision that is now abused by a politically biased and ideologically uniform press.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high pleading standard for public officials in defamation cases, making it difficult for such claims to survive a motion to dismiss. It clarifies that a combination of factors often alleged to show malice—such as a preconceived narrative, an adversarial tone, and the rejection of denials—are generally insufficient to plausibly allege that a publisher entertained 'serious doubts' about a story's truth. The ruling protects investigative journalism from being stifled by early-stage litigation, emphasizing that even critical or aggressive reporting on public officials receives robust First Amendment protection. The forceful dissent, however, highlights a critical tension by arguing that publishing a story while admitting a lack of evidence for a key element can, by itself, constitute an 'inherently improbable' narrative sufficient to infer malice.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Christiana Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc. (2021)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"