By Mikayla Watts ‘26

Facts

In 1960, The New York Times (NYT) published an editorial, “Combined Appeal,” following a perjury charge against Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK). The publication outlines several events that arose in major southern cities as part of the Civil Rights Movement, including one in Montgomery, Alabama. The publication describes a demonstration where students at Alabama State College sang “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” on the steps of the State Capitol building. According to the publication, this led to students’ expulsion from school and a showing of police “armed with shotguns and tear-gas.” The second part of the publication includes The New York Times’ allegations against who they call the “Southern violators of the Constitution.” They cite physical attacks against MLK Jr., along with arrests for minor offenses. It is here that the publication mentions the charge of perjury against MLK Jr., which could result in his imprisonment of 10 years.

The publication expressly names several major southern cities where events, such as those discussed above, took place. Specifically, however, the City Public Safety Commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama, L.B. Sullivan brought suit against the NYT subsequent to the publication’s release. He alleged defamation, specifically, libel. Taking issue with the description of events in Montgomery outlined by the publication, Sullivan pointed out the false nature of some of the facts in the publication. While neither he nor his subordinates were directly named in the publication, Sullivan claimed that the statements “referred to him because his duties included supervision of the police department.” 

Constitutional Issue

In this case, the United States Supreme Court placed an emphasis on the Fourteenth Amendment, and more so, the First Amendment. Specifically, the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press Clauses, which prohibit any law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” In this case, the Court placed particular focus on the freedom of the New York Times’ speech and press, and how far those freedoms extended when considering the truth of the statements, as well as those who Sullivan argued were implied. The Fourteenth Amendment affords the right of “equal protection of the laws” to the citizens of the United States. The Court focused on this right following the application of the First Amendment and the Court’s decision. The Court’s decision in favor of either party would result in its ruling that the First Amendment’s protections or any constitutional restrictions would have to apply equally to that party. In condensing the nuance to be considered in this case, the Supreme Court was presented with the issue of whether or not holding a critic liable for expressing criticism against a public official violates the rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 

Decision

The jury at the trial court found in favor of Sullivan, awarding him damages on the basis of defamatory libel. The case was appealed and brought before the Supreme Court of Alabama, where the lower court’s decision was affirmed. The United States Supreme Court ultimately reversed the Alabama Supreme Court decision, and remanded the case for additional proceedings.

In considering the protections granted by the First Amendment of the Constitution, the Court held that the publication and language of the New York Times in this case were in fact protected. In its decision, the Court created a standard upon which public officials could recover damages for defamation against them. The “actual malice” standard is one in which the false statement must be made with “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” 

The decision to create this standard expanded First Amendment protections to those who may report or speak about public officials. Public officials, particularly government officials, interact with the public, some of whom they serve. This, according to the Court, results in an expected and sometimes necessary right of the public to criticize these officials. Of course, while this rule does raise the standard for public officials to recover damages, it is important to note that these same officials are still protected from defamation. That is where the knowingly false standard applies, and if met, when damages can be recovered. This requires that the declarant of a false statement be knowledgeable or disregard the falsity of that statement about the public figure.

Application

In applying the actual malice standard to the case at hand, the Court found that the false statements made in the NYT publication were not made with the proper knowledge or reckless disregard. In fact, the Court found that the writers of this publication relied on many sources that they believed were reliable and truthful in their information. Furthermore, the Court notes that the evidence was insufficient for a jury to find that the statements were in regards to Sullivan, as the publication never mentioned him, “either by name or official position.”

In addressing the second fact, the Court draws an analogy between the government and its criticism by citizens. Justice Brennan states about citizens, “It is as much his duty to criticize as it is the official’s duty to administer.” To deny citizens the right to criticize public officials would be to grant public officials “unjustified preference” over any of the public served by these officials. To put restrictions on the freedom of expression of those officials would lead much of the public to sacrifice their First Amendment guarantee. This becomes especially problematic when considering restrictions on the publics’ expression against those who are to be of public service. 

This case aims much of its focus towards the false statements of the publication, and how the First Amendment should apply specifically to those statements. Citing NAACP v. Button, Justice Brennan, writing for the Court, noted that in order for the freedom of expression to have proper “‘breathing space,’” there has to be an extent of protection on false statements. If this allowance were not in place, especially regarding public officials, the Court warns of possible “‘self-censorship.’” The fear of civil liability for statements that may unknowingly be false can lead to a lack of expression, which directly undermines the guarantees of the First Amendment.

The Court

This landmark case was decided by the Warren Court, which was headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren. Chief Justice Warren was appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower and subsequently confirmed in 1954. The ruling in this case is consistent with many others handed down by the Warren Court, as its judicial identity was shaped largely around expanding liberties and rights for many groups in the United States. This becomes even more apparent when considering other landmark cases ruled upon by this particular court. Cases such as Brown v. Board of Education was a major case in the progression of equal rights for African Americans in the United States, where the Warren Court famously struck down the “separate but equal doctrine.” Furthermore, the Court ruled in favor of additional rights under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause in Miranda v. Arizona, requiring arrestees to have their rights read to them. 

Conclusion

Overall, New York Times v. Sullivan was a case that added nuance to the First Amendment and its Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press Clauses. The case expanded protections for media outlets, such as The New York Times, as it set a higher standard of defamation against public officials. The “actual malice” standard laid out in Sullivan is one that creates a higher bar for public officials to be awarded damages for defamation, as any defamatory comments must not only be false, but the false nature of the comments have to have been known or disregarded. 

Mikayla Watts is a sophomore majoring in criminal justice and philosophy.

Sources

Advertisement, “Heed Their Rising Voices.” (1960, March 19). New York Times. Retrieved September 24, 2025 from https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/documented-rights/exhibit/section4/detail/heed-rising-voices-transcript.html 

Earl Warren Court (1953-1969). (n.d). Justia. Retrieved September 24, 2025 from https://supreme.justia.com/supreme-court-history/warren-court/ 

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/ 

Solomon, S. (2015, February 19). “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Medium. Retrieved September 29, 2025 https://medium.com/@Salem_Solomon/congress-shall-make-no-law-abridging-the-freedom-of-speech-or-of-the-press-749f35d83700 

U.S. Const. Amend. I 

U.S. Const. Amend. XIV § 1