New York Times Co. v. Sullivan [1964]

376 U.S. 254 (1964) · Supreme Court of the United States · United States

defamation lawdefamation lawfirst amendment law

Issue

What constitutional fault standard applies to public official defamation claims?

Held

Public officials must prove actual malice.

Exam use

Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.

Summary

Foundational constitutional defamation case.

Facts

A public official sued over allegedly defamatory statements in a civil rights advertisement.

Issue

What constitutional fault standard applies to public official defamation claims?

Held

Public officials must prove actual malice.

Ratio Decidendi

Public officials must show knowing falsity or reckless disregard for truth.

Reasoning

Robust debate on public issues requires breathing space for erroneous statements.

Essay-Ready Explanation Generator

Version 1 of 4

Reference to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254 (1964)) strengthens a defamation law answer because the case reflects the principle that Public officials must show knowing falsity or reckless disregard for truth. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as What constitutional fault standard applies to public official defamation claims? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.

Significance

Foundational constitutional defamation case.

Related Cases

No related cases listed.

Exam Tips

Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.

Revision Checklist

  • Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
  • State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
  • Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
  • Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.

Sources