Anderson et al. v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., et al. (477 U.S. 242)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 25, 1986 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 477 U.S. 242 · 106 S. Ct. 2505
- Decided
- June 25, 1986
- Term
- October Term 1985
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice White
- Issue area
- First Amendment
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 279-280 (1964), we held that, in a libel suit brought by a public official, the First Amendment requires the plaintiff to show that in publishing the defamatory statement the defendant acted with actual malice — “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” We held further that such actual malice must be shown with “convincing clarity.” Id., at 285-286. See also Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 342 (1974). These New York Times requirements we have since extended to libel suits brought by public figures as well. See, e. g., Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U. S. 130 (1967). This case presents the question whether the clear-and-convincing-evidence requirement must be considered by a court ruling on a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a case to which New York Times applies. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that that requirement need not be considered at the summary judgment stage. 241 U. S. App. D. C. 246, 746 F. 2d 1563 (1984). We granted certiorari, 471 U. S. 1134 (1985), because that holding was in conflict with decisions of several other Courts of Appeals, which had held that the New York Times requirement of clear and…
Excerpt of a 60,361-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.