Garrison v. Louisiana
379 U.S. 64 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The constitutional protections for speech concerning public officials, established in New York Times v. Sullivan, apply to state criminal libel prosecutions. A state may not punish true statements about public officials, even if made with ill-will, nor may it punish false statements unless they are made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
Facts:
- Jim Garrison, the District Attorney of Orleans Parish, was in a public dispute with the eight judges of the local Criminal District Court regarding the funding and administration of his office.
- The judges implemented a rule requiring the approval of five out of the eight judges for Garrison's office to receive disbursements from a specific fund.
- Subsequently, the judges refused to authorize funds for Garrison to conduct undercover investigations into commercial vice operations.
- In response, Garrison held a press conference where he issued a statement criticizing the judges.
- In his statement, Garrison attributed a large backlog of criminal cases to the judges' inefficiency, laziness, and excessive vacations.
- Garrison also accused the judges of hampering his law enforcement efforts by blocking funds and questioned whether they were subject to 'racketeer influences'.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana initiated a criminal prosecution against District Attorney Jim Garrison in a Louisiana trial court for criminal defamation.
- Following a non-jury trial, the trial court convicted Garrison.
- Garrison appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the state's highest appellate court.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed Garrison's conviction.
- Garrison then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which granted review.
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 state criminal defamation statute that permits punishment for true statements about public officials made with ill-will, and for false statements made without a reasonable belief in their truth, unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. The constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression established in New York Times v. Sullivan apply with equal force to criminal libel cases involving criticism of public officials. The Louisiana statute is unconstitutional because it punishes true statements if made with 'ill-will,' and it punishes false statements based on a 'reasonable belief' standard rather than the constitutionally required 'actual malice' standard. The Court reasoned that the historical purpose of criminal libel—to prevent breaches of the peace—is now largely obsolete. Where criticism of public officials is concerned, the paramount public interest in the free dissemination of truth outweighs an official's interest in their reputation. Therefore, truthful criticism of public officials is absolutely protected, and false statements are protected unless made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. The Louisiana law's 'reasonable belief' test is equivalent to a negligence standard, which is constitutionally insufficient to justify sanctions on speech about public matters.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. The conviction should be reversed because the First Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth, grants absolute protection for public discussion and criticism of public officials. The 'actual malice' test created by the Court is an insufficient safeguard, as vague terms like 'malicious' have historically been used to punish and stifle political dissent. The old English law of seditious criminal libel has absolutely no place under the U.S. Constitution.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. While this prosecution for seditious libel is unconstitutional, the 'actual malice' standard the Court applies is a judicial gloss that weakens the First Amendment. The Constitution draws a line only between pure 'speech,' which is protected, and 'conduct' or overt acts, which may be punished. Seditious libel is a dangerous creation of the English Star Chamber, designed to suppress criticism of the government, and it should be wholly rejected in the American constitutional system.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Goldberg
Yes. The Constitution provides citizens and the press with an unconditional freedom to criticize the official conduct of public officials. This fundamental principle, articulated in the civil context of New York Times, applies with equal force to this criminal libel prosecution. If libel against the government itself is unconstitutional, then criminal or civil libel for criticism of the official conduct of government officers must also be unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This case significantly extended the 'actual malice' standard from New York Times v. Sullivan, a civil libel case, to the domain of criminal libel law. By doing so, the Court effectively dismantled the historical crime of seditious libel in the United States, which had been used to punish criticism of government officials. The decision makes it exceptionally difficult for states to use criminal statutes to silence political opponents, reinforcing the principle that public debate should be 'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.' This ruling solidified a high constitutional barrier against punishing speech about public figures, protecting even false and harsh criticism so long as it is not knowingly or recklessly false.
Unlock the full brief for Garrison v. Louisiana