The New York Times Company v. Eugene Connor
365 F.2d 567, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5260 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Due to First Amendment considerations, a greater showing of 'minimum contacts' is required to satisfy the Due Process Clause when asserting personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state newspaper in a libel action than is necessary for other types of tortious activity.
Facts:
- The New York Times assigned its staff reporter, Harrison Salisbury, to travel to Alabama to write a 'situationer' story about racial conditions.
- Salisbury spent five days in Alabama gathering information for the article, during which he interviewed several individuals and made three unsuccessful attempts to contact Birmingham City Commissioner Eugene Connor.
- Salisbury wrote the article, titled 'Fear and Hatred Grip Birmingham,' while on a plane returning to New York.
- The article, published on April 12, 1960, contained four specific statements about Connor that formed the basis of the libel claim.
- At the time, The New York Times had an average daily circulation of approximately 395 copies and a Sunday circulation of about 2,455 copies in Alabama.
- The Times did not maintain any offices, regular employees, or agents in Alabama, though it occasionally sent employees to solicit advertising and used freelance 'stringers' paid per story.
Procedural Posture:
- Eugene Connor sued The New York Times for libel in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
- The district court initially upheld service of process under Alabama's long-arm statute.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding service improper based on its interpretation of Alabama's 'single publication rule'.
- Following a contrary ruling on the long-arm statute by the Alabama Supreme Court in the related Sullivan case, the Fifth Circuit vacated its own prior decision and remanded the Connor case for a trial on the merits.
- A trial was held, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Connor, awarding $40,000 in damages based on a finding of 'actual malice'.
- The New York Times (appellant) appealed the jury's verdict to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, with Connor as the appellee.
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 non-resident newspaper's limited circulation, sporadic advertising solicitation, and a reporter's single news-gathering trip into a state provide sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy the Due Process Clause for a libel suit arising from that trip, in light of First Amendment protections for the press?
Opinions:
Majority - Thornberry, Circuit Judge
No. The assertion of jurisdiction over The New York Times violates the Due Process Clause. First Amendment considerations surrounding the law of libel require a greater showing of contact to satisfy due process than is necessary in other types of tort cases. The court harmonized its prior holdings in Buckley (finding no jurisdiction over a newspaper) and Elkhart (finding jurisdiction over a manufacturer for a single tort) by reasoning that subjecting newspapers to jurisdiction based on minimal contacts would have a chilling effect on the press. This could lead publishers to cease distribution in states where they have limited circulation to avoid the risk of large libel judgments from hostile local juries, thereby limiting the public's access to information. Although finding no jurisdiction, the court addressed the merits for judicial economy and found the evidence insufficient to prove 'actual malice.' The plaintiff failed to show with convincing clarity that The Times published statements with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth, as Salisbury identified his sources and there was no evidence he knew or suspected they were false.
Dissenting - Lynne, District Judge
Yes. The court should have found that sufficient minimum contacts existed to assert jurisdiction. The majority misapplied precedent because, unlike in Buckley, the allegedly libelous article in this case arose directly out of the activities of the defendant's agent, Salisbury, within the state of Alabama. This direct causal link between the in-state news-gathering activities and the plaintiff's cause of action provides a constitutional basis for jurisdiction under the standard of International Shoe. The dissent argued that while a state cannot condition the right to gather news on submitting to its jurisdiction, asserting jurisdiction after a tort arises from that activity does not impermissibly intrude upon First Amendment rights.
Analysis:
This decision established a significant principle that elevates First Amendment concerns within the due process analysis for personal jurisdiction. It creates a higher jurisdictional bar for libel claims against out-of-state media defendants compared to other tortfeasors. By distinguishing between libel and other torts, the court provided a framework for protecting the press from the 'chilling effect' of being forced to defend lawsuits in any forum where their publications have minimal circulation. This precedent makes it more difficult for public officials to sue national media outlets in local courts, requiring them to demonstrate more substantial and systematic contacts by the publisher with the forum state.
Unlock the full brief for The New York Times Company v. Eugene Connor