McDonald v. Smith
105 S. Ct. 2787, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 112, 86 L. Ed. 2d 384 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Petition Clause of the First Amendment does not grant absolute immunity from liability for defamatory statements made with actual malice in a petition to a government official.
Facts:
- Robert Smith was under consideration for the position of United States Attorney.
- David McDonald wrote two letters to President Ronald Reagan containing statements about Smith.
- The letters accused Smith of various forms of misconduct, including violating civil rights, fraud, extortion, and violations of professional ethics.
- Smith alleged that McDonald knew these accusations were false and intended to injure Smith's reputation and job prospects.
- McDonald sent copies of the letters to several other high-ranking officials in the Executive and Legislative branches.
- Following the sending of the letters, Smith was not appointed to the U.S. Attorney position.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Smith filed a libel action against David McDonald in North Carolina state court.
- McDonald removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina based on diversity of citizenship.
- McDonald moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting absolute immunity under the First Amendment's Petition Clause.
- The District Court denied the motion, holding that the Petition Clause does not grant absolute immunity for libel.
- McDonald (appellant) appealed the District Court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision.
- The United States Supreme Court granted McDonald's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 Petition Clause of the First Amendment provide absolute immunity from damages for libelous statements made in a letter to a government official?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. The Petition Clause of the First Amendment does not provide absolute immunity from liability for libelous statements. The right to petition is inseparable from the other First Amendment guarantees of speech and press, and there is no sound basis for granting it greater protection. Historical review does not show that the Framers intended to provide an unqualified right to express damaging falsehoods. Citing its 1845 precedent in White v. Nicholls, the Court reiterated that a petition is actionable if prompted by 'express malice,' defined as 'falsehood and the absence of probable cause.' Just as baseless litigation is not immunized by the right to petition, neither are intentional and reckless falsehoods in letters to the President. The right to petition is guaranteed, but the right to commit libel with impunity is not.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
No. The qualified privilege defined in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which protects statements about public officials unless made with 'actual malice,' provides the correct and sufficient standard. There is no historical or functional reason to grant petitions an absolute privilege that is denied to other forms of First Amendment expression. The freedoms of speech, press, and petition are interrelated components of self-governance and should be treated similarly. Whether one is speaking across a fence, publishing an editorial, or sending a letter to the President, the same 'actual malice' standard should apply to balance the protection of robust debate with the prevention of calculated falsehoods.
Analysis:
This decision harmonizes the Petition Clause with the Speech and Press Clauses, clarifying that it does not confer a 'super-right' with greater protection than other First Amendment freedoms. By applying the 'actual malice' standard from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to petitioning activity, the Court prevented the clause from being used as an absolute shield for defamatory falsehoods. This ensures a consistent legal standard for all forms of expression concerning public affairs and officials, reinforcing that while robust criticism is protected, knowingly or recklessly false statements are not.
