Wolston v. Reader's Digest Assn., Inc.
443 U.S. 157, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 142, 61 L. Ed. 2d 450 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who engages in criminal conduct and is the subject of public attention does not automatically become a limited-purpose public figure for defamation purposes. The individual must have voluntarily thrust or injected themselves into a particular public controversy in an attempt to influence the resolution of the issues involved.
Facts:
- In 1957, Ilya Wolston's aunt and uncle, Myra and Jack Soble, were arrested and pleaded guilty to espionage charges.
- During the ensuing grand jury investigation into Soviet intelligence activities, Wolston was interviewed by the FBI and subpoenaed to appear.
- On July 1, 1958, Wolston failed to respond to a grand jury subpoena, citing his state of mental depression.
- As a result of his failure to appear, Wolston was cited for criminal contempt of court, which generated approximately 15 newspaper stories over a six-week period.
- Wolston pleaded guilty to the contempt charge, received a suspended sentence, and was never indicted for espionage.
- Following his sentencing in 1958, Wolston returned to a private life.
- In 1974, Reader’s Digest Association, Inc. published a book titled 'KGB', written by John Barron, which identified Wolston as a 'Soviet agent' who was convicted of contempt charges 'following espionage indictments'.
Procedural Posture:
- Ilya Wolston (plaintiff) sued Reader's Digest Association, Inc. and John Barron (defendants) for defamation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The District Court (trial court) granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Wolston was a public figure and had not presented sufficient evidence of 'actual malice'.
- Wolston (appellant) appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 an individual who fails to appear before a grand jury investigating espionage, and is subsequently held in criminal contempt, a limited-purpose public figure who must prove 'actual malice' in a defamation suit against a publisher who identified him as a Soviet agent?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No. A person who is involuntarily drawn into a public controversy is not a limited-purpose public figure and is not required to meet the 'actual malice' standard for a defamation claim. Wolston was not a public figure because he did not voluntarily thrust or inject himself into the public controversy surrounding Soviet espionage. He was 'dragged unwillingly into the controversy' by the government's investigation. His failure to appear before the grand jury, which was the result of his poor health, was not an attempt to invite public attention or influence the resolution of any public issues. Merely being involved in a 'newsworthy' event or being convicted of a crime does not transform a private individual into a public figure, as this would resurrect the rejected standard from Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Blackmun
No. While concurring in the judgment, the Court's reasoning is too restrictive. Assuming Wolston had gained public-figure status in 1958, he clearly lost that status by the time the book was published in 1974. The passage of 16 years diminished his access to the media for counterargument and negated any inference that he continued to assume the risk of public scrutiny. A person can be a public figure for contemporaneous reporting but become a private individual again for the purposes of later historical commentary.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. Wolston qualified as a public figure for the limited purpose of comment on his involvement in espionage in the 1950s and remained one in 1974. The issue of Soviet espionage is a legitimate and continuing topic of public debate concerning national security, and the mere lapse of time is not decisive in erasing public-figure status. However, the case should have been remanded for trial because the evidence raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the author acted with actual malice.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the definition of a 'limited-purpose public figure' established in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. The Court clarified that mere involvement in a matter of public interest, even one involving criminal activity, is insufficient to confer public-figure status. The decision emphasizes the requirement of voluntary action, where an individual must actively seek to influence a public controversy, thereby protecting individuals who are involuntarily drawn into the public spotlight. This holding prevents a return to a 'newsworthiness' standard and reinforces the distinction between private individuals and those who assume the risk of public scrutiny.
