Milan Jankovic v. International Crisis Group
422 U.S. App. D.C. 259, 822 F.3d 576 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who voluntarily thrusts themselves into a public controversy by, for example, advising political leaders, financing lobbying efforts, and publicly stating political ambitions, becomes a limited-purpose public figure for defamation purposes. To prevail, such a figure must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published a defamatory falsehood with 'actual malice,' meaning with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
Facts:
- Milan Jankovic, also known as Philip Zepter, was a successful Serbian businessman who founded a cookware company and expanded into other areas, including banking in Serbia, while Slobodan Milosevic was in power.
- After Milosevic was ousted in 2000, Zepter became an outspoken supporter of the new Prime Minister, Zoran Djindjic, and his political and economic reform efforts.
- Zepter acted as an advisor to Prime Minister Djindjic and paid over $100,000 to a lobbyist to help improve relations between Serbia and the United States.
- In a December 2001 open letter published on the front page of two Serbian newspapers, Zepter affirmed his support for Djindjic and announced his own future political ambitions, stating, 'When, in a few years, I enter [the] political arena, I will enter, to win.'
- In 2003, after Prime Minister Djindjic's assassination, the International Crisis Group (ICG), a non-profit organization, published a report titled 'Serbian Reform Stalls Again' (Report 145).
- Report 145 contained a statement describing Zepter as being 'associated with the Milosevic regime and bene-fitted from it directly' and as being part of a 'crony company.'
- Zepter alleged that James Lyon, the report's principal author, attempted to extort one to two million dollars from him in exchange for stopping the publication of negative stories.
Procedural Posture:
- Milan Jankovic (Zepter) sued the International Crisis Group (ICG) for defamation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (a federal trial court).
- The district court dismissed the complaint, but Zepter appealed.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (an intermediate federal appellate court) reversed in part, holding that one statement was capable of defamatory meaning, and remanded the case.
- On remand, the district court again ruled in favor of ICG, and Zepter appealed a second time.
- The D.C. Circuit again reversed, rejecting ICG's defenses that the statement was opinion or fair comment, and remanded the case.
- On the second remand, ICG moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted, ruling that Zepter was a limited-purpose public figure who failed to show actual malice.
- Zepter appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for a third time.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a prominent businessman who publicly supports a new political regime, finances lobbying efforts on its behalf, and expresses his own political ambitions a limited-purpose public figure who must prove actual malice in a defamation claim arising from statements about his connections to a prior regime?
Opinions:
Majority - Rogers, J.
Yes, a businessman who actively and voluntarily involves himself in a public controversy becomes a limited-purpose public figure. The court applied the three-part Waldbaum test and found Zepter met the criteria. First, there was a clear public controversy regarding 'political and economic reform in Serbia' in the post-Milosevic era. Second, Zepter 'thrust' himself into this controversy through purposeful actions, including financially backing lobbyists, advising the Prime Minister, and making public statements about his support and future political plans. Third, the defamatory statement about his ties to the prior Milosevic regime was germane to his role in the post-Milosevic reform controversy, as it related to his motives and background. As a limited-purpose public figure, Zepter was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that ICG acted with 'actual malice.' The court concluded he failed to meet this high burden. ICG's author, James Lyon, relied on multiple sources, including prior reports, confidential sources, and press coverage. Even if some sources were flawed or ICG was negligent, Zepter did not provide sufficient evidence to show that ICG or Lyon entertained 'serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.' The alleged extortion attempt, while contemptible, was not by itself clear and convincing evidence of a willingness to publish falsehoods.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the formidable protection the First Amendment provides to speech about public figures, affirming the high 'actual malice' standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan. The case clarifies that one does not need to be an elected official to be a limited-purpose public figure; voluntarily and prominently engaging in a public controversy is sufficient. It further illustrates the difficulty of proving actual malice, demonstrating that evidence of bad motives (like extortion), sloppy journalism, or reliance on questionable sources is not enough, on its own, to prove that a publisher had actual, subjective doubts about the truth of a statement.
Unlock the full brief for Milan Jankovic v. International Crisis Group