Yorie Von Kahl v. Bureau of National Affairs
856 F.3d 106 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A publisher's honest misinterpretation of an ambiguous or misleading source document provided by the plaintiff does not constitute actual malice for a defamation claim, even if the publisher's interpretation was negligent.
Facts:
- In 1983, Yorie Von Kahl was involved in a shootout with U.S. Marshals, resulting in the death of two marshals.
- Kahl was subsequently convicted of two counts of second-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.
- Over the ensuing years, Kahl actively publicized his case and anti-government views through media interviews, a book, and a personal website, seeking to overturn his conviction.
- In 2005, Kahl filed a mandamus petition in the U.S. Supreme Court, attaching an appendix containing an excerpted transcript from his 1983 sentencing hearing.
- The excerpted transcript did not identify the speakers and included comments about Kahl's lack of contrition and belief that the murders were justified, immediately followed by the judge's pronouncement of the sentence.
- The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) published a summary of the petition, reporting that the sentencing judge had made the comments about Kahl's lack of contrition, based on its reading of the provided transcript.
- Almost two years later, Kahl's attorney sent a letter to BNA complaining about the report but did not clarify that the prosecutor, not the judge, had made the statements in question.
- After BNA published a clarification, Kahl sent another letter, for the first time informing BNA that the prosecutor was the one who made the statements.
Procedural Posture:
- Yorie Von Kahl sued the Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (BNA) for defamation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a federal trial court.
- The District Court determined that Kahl was a limited-purpose public figure for the purposes of his claim.
- After discovery, BNA filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Kahl had failed to produce sufficient evidence of actual malice.
- The District Court denied BNA's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the inaccuracy of the report was sufficient for the claim to proceed to trial.
- The District Court certified its order denying summary judgment for an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with BNA as the appellant and Kahl 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 publisher act with actual malice when it mistakenly attributes statements to a sentencing judge instead of a prosecutor, where the error resulted from a reasonable interpretation of a confusing, excerpted transcript provided by the public-figure plaintiff himself?
Opinions:
Majority - Kavanaugh, Circuit Judge
No. A publisher does not act with actual malice when its error stems from a reasonable interpretation of a misleading document supplied by the plaintiff. First, the court affirmed that Yorie Von Kahl is a limited-purpose public figure because there was a public controversy surrounding his case, he voluntarily thrust himself into that controversy, and the challenged statements were germane to his participation. As a public figure, Kahl must prove by clear and convincing evidence that BNA acted with actual malice—that is, with knowledge of the statement's falsity or with reckless disregard for its truth. The court found Kahl failed to meet this high standard because BNA's error of attributing the prosecutor's words to the judge was a direct result of the poorly prepared and ambiguous excerpted transcript that Kahl himself provided. A reasonable reader of that document would have believed the judge was speaking. An honest misinterpretation, even if negligent, does not rise to the level of actual malice required by the First Amendment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the formidable burden of proof on public-figure plaintiffs in defamation cases, particularly at the summary judgment stage. It clarifies that the 'actual malice' standard is not met by showing mere journalistic error or negligence, especially when the plaintiff is the source of the confusing information. By shielding the press from liability for reasonable mistakes based on a plaintiff's own ambiguous materials, the ruling strengthens First Amendment protections for reporting on court filings and public records. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for a public figure to sustain a defamation claim when their own actions contribute to the factual inaccuracy they are complaining about.
Unlock the full brief for Yorie Von Kahl v. Bureau of National Affairs