View source for New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

{{distinguish| New York Times Co. v. United States}}
{{Use American English|date=September 2025}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=April 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
| Litigants = The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
| ArgueDate = January 6
| ArgueYear = 1964
| DecideDate = March 9
| DecideYear = 1964
| FullName = {{unbulleted list|The New York Times Company v. L. B. Sullivan| Ralph D. Albernathy, et al. v. L. B. Sullivan}}
| USVol = 376
| USPage = 254
| ParallelCitations = 84 S. Ct. 710; 11 [[Lawyers' Edition|L. Ed. 2d]] 686; 1964 [[LexisNexis|U.S. LEXIS]] 1655; 95 [[American Law Reports|A.L.R.2d]] 1412; 1 Media L. Rep. 1527
| Docket = 
| OralArgument = https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/warren11/oral_argument_audio/14501
| OralReargument = https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/warren11/oral_argument_audio/15202
| OpinionAnnouncement = 
| Prior = Judgment for plaintiff, Circuit Court, Montgomery County, Alabama; motion for new trial denied, Circuit Court, Montgomery County; affirmed, 144 So. 2d 25 (Ala. 1962); [[Certiorari|cert]]. granted, {{ussc|371|946|1963|el=no}}.
| Subsequent = 
| Holding = A newspaper cannot be held liable for making false defamatory statements about the official conduct of a public official unless the statements were made with [[actual malice]].
| Majority = Brennan
| JoinMajority = Warren, Clark, Harlan, Stewart, White
| Concurrence = Black
| JoinConcurrence = Douglas
| Concurrence2 = Goldberg (in result)
| JoinConcurrence2 = Douglas
| Concurrence/Dissent = 
| JoinConcurrence/Dissent = 
| Dissent = 
| JoinDissent = 
| Dissent2 = 
| JoinDissent2 = 
| LawsApplied = [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amends. I]], [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|XIV]]
}}
'''''New York Times Co. v. Sullivan''''', 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States|landmark]] [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] decision that ruled the [[Freedom of speech in the United States|freedom of speech]] protections in the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]] limit the ability of a public official to sue for [[defamation]].<ref name="NYT v S">{{ussc|name=New York Times v. Sullivan|link=|volume=376|page=254|pin=|year=1964}}</ref>{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;11.3.5.2, p. 1140}} The decision held that if a [[plaintiff]] in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or candidate for public office, then not only must they prove [[United States defamation law|the normal elements of defamation]]{{mdash}}publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party{{mdash}}they must also prove that the statement was made with "[[actual malice]]", meaning the [[defendant]] either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be false.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;11.3.5.2, p. 1140}} ''New York Times Co. v. Sullivan'' is frequently ranked as one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions of the modern era.<ref name="Time 2021-02-10" />

The case began in 1960, when ''[[The New York Times]]'' published a full-page advertisement by supporters of [[Martin Luther King Jr.]] that criticized the police in [[Montgomery, Alabama]], for their treatment of [[civil rights movement]] protesters.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;11.3.5.2, p. 1140}} The ad had several factual errors regarding the number of times King had been arrested during the protests, what song the protesters had sung, and whether students had been expelled for participating.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;11.3.5.2, p. 1140}} Based on the inaccuracies, Montgomery police commissioner L. B. Sullivan sued the ''Times'' for defamation in the local Alabama county court.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;11.3.5.2, p. 1140}} After the judge ruled that the advertisement's inaccuracies were defamatory ''per se'', the [[jury]] returned a verdict in favor of Sullivan and awarded him $500,000 in [[damages]].{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;11.3.5.2, p. 1140}} The ''Times'' appealed first to the [[Supreme Court of Alabama]], which affirmed the verdict, and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In March 1964, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Alabama court's verdict violated the First Amendment.<ref name="NYT v S" /> The Court reasoned that defending the principle of wide-open debate will inevitably include "vehement, caustic, and... unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." The Supreme Court's decision, and its adoption of the [[Actual malice|actual malice standard]] for defamation cases by public officials, reduced the financial exposure from potential defamation claims and frustrated efforts by public officials to use these claims to suppress political criticism.<ref name="Kagan 1991">[[Elena Kagan]], [http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11530&context=journal_articles "A Libel Story: Sullivan Then and Now"] (reviewing [[Anthony Lewis]], ''Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment'' (1991)), 18 ''[[Law and Social Inquiry]]'' 197 (1993).</ref><ref name="Schmitt 2014">Rick Schmitt, [https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/october-2014-nyt-sullivan.cfm "Window to the Past: ''New York Times Co. v. Sullivan''"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160806121500/https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/october-2014-nyt-sullivan.cfm |date=2016-08-06 }}, ''Washington Lawyer'', October 2014.</ref> The Supreme Court has since extended ''Sullivan''{{'s}} higher legal standard for defamation to all "[[public figures]]". This has made it extremely difficult for a public figure to win a defamation lawsuit in the United States.

==Background==
On March 29, 1960, ''[[The New York Times]]'' carried a full-page advertisement titled "[[Heed Their Rising Voices]]", paid for by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South.<ref>[https://research.archives.gov/description/2641477 "Heed Their Rising Voices"] (advertisement). National Archives.</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Heed Their Rising Voices |type=advertisement |work=The New York Times |date=March 29, 1960 |id=National Archives Identifier 2641477|url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/documented-rights/exhibit/section4/detail/heed-rising-voices.html|via=National Archives Atlanta, Records of District Courts of the United States|access-date=11 March 2014}}</ref> In the advertisement, the Committee solicited funds to defend [[Martin Luther King Jr.]], against an [[Alabama]] [[perjury]] indictment. The advertisement described actions against civil rights protesters, some of them inaccurately, some of which involved the police force of [[Montgomery, Alabama|Montgomery]], Alabama. Referring to Alabama "official authority and police power", the advertisement stated: "They have arrested [King] seven times. ... ", whereas he had been arrested four times; and that "truckloads of police ... ringed the Alabama State College Campus" after the demonstration at the State Capitol, whereas the police had been "deployed near" the campus but had not actually "ringed" it and had not gone there in connection with the State Capitol demonstration.<ref name="NYT v S" /> Although the Montgomery Public Safety commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, was not named in the advertisement, Sullivan argued that the inaccurate criticism of actions by the police was defamatory to him as well because it was his duty to supervise the police department.<ref name="NYT v S" />
[[File:Heed_Their_Rising_Voices.jpg|right|thumb|The advertisement published in ''[[The New York Times]]'' on March 29, 1960, that led to Sullivan's defamation lawsuit]]

Because Alabama law denied public officers recovery of punitive damages in a libel action on their official conduct unless they first made a written demand for a public retraction and the defendant failed or refused to comply, Sullivan sent such a request.<ref name="NYT v S " /> The ''Times'' did not publish a retraction in response to the demand. Instead, its lawyers wrote a letter<ref name="Lewis 2011">{{cite book|last=Lewis|first=Anthony|title=Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YElZ5GgC7E0C&pg=PA12|date=20 April 2011|publisher=Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group|isbn=978-0-307-78782-8|page=12}}</ref> stating, among other things, that "we ... are somewhat puzzled as to how you think the statements in any way reflect on you," and "you might, if you desire, let us know in what respect you claim that the statements in the advertisement reflect on you."<ref name="NYT v S " />

Sullivan did not respond but instead filed a libel suit a few days later. He also sued four African-American ministers mentioned in the ad: [[Ralph Abernathy]], [[S.S. Seay|S.S. Seay Sr.]], [[Fred Shuttlesworth]], and [[Joseph Lowery]].

The ''Times'' subsequently published a retraction of the advertisement upon the demand of Governor [[John Malcolm Patterson|John Patterson]] of Alabama, who alleged the publication charged him with "grave misconduct and ... improper actions and omissions as Governor of Alabama and ''[[ex officio]]'' chairman of the State Board of Education of Alabama."<ref name="NYT v S" /> When asked to explain why there had been a retraction for the Governor but not for Sullivan, the Secretary of the ''Times'' testified:
<blockquote>
We did that because we didn't want anything that was published by the ''Times'' to be a reflection on the State of Alabama and the Governor was, as far as we could see, the embodiment of the State of Alabama and the proper representative of the state and we had by that time learned more of the facts which the ad purported to recite and, finally, the ad did refer to the action of the state authorities and the Board of Education presumably of which the Governor is the ''ex officio'' chairman{{nbsp}} ... 
</blockquote>
However, the Secretary also testified he did not think that "any of the languages in there referred to Mr. Sullivan."<ref name="NYT v S" />

The jury returned a verdict for Sullivan and awarded him $500,000 in damages {{USDCY|500000|1961}}. The state supreme court affirmed<ref>{{cite court |litigants=New York Times Company v. Sullivan |vol=273 |reporter=Ala. |opinion=656 |court=Supreme Court of Alabama |date=August 30, 1962 |url=https://casetext.com/case/new-york-times-company-v-sullivan-1 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181215065802/https://casetext.com/case/new-york-times-company-v-sullivan-1 |url-status=dead |archive-date=December 15, 2018 |access-date=December 14, 2018 }}</ref> on August 30, 1962, saying "The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not protect libelous publications". ''The Times'' appealed to the United States Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |editor-last1=Carson |editor-first1=Clayborne |editor-last2=Armstrong |editor-first2=Tenisha |editor-last3=Carson |editor-first3=Susan |editor-last4=Cook |editor-first4=Erin |editor-last5=Englander |editor-first5=Susan |encyclopedia=Martin Luther King Jr., Encyclopedia |title=New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 |date=30 May 2017 |url=https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/new-york-times-co-v-sullivan-376-us-254 |access-date=December 14, 2018 |publisher=The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute |location=Stanford University}}</ref><ref name="oyez.org">{{cite web |title=''New York Times Co. v. Sullivan'' |url= https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39 |work=Oyez }}</ref>

Constitutional law scholar [[Herbert Wechsler]] successfully argued the case before the United States Supreme Court. [[Louis M. Loeb]], a partner at the firm of [[Lord Day & Lord]] who served as chief counsel to the ''Times'' from 1948 to 1967,<ref>''Who's Who in America'' 1978–1979</ref> was among the authors of the brief of the ''Times''.

==Decision==
On March 9, 1964, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9–0 decision in favor of the ''Times'' that vacated the Alabama court's judgment and limited newspapers' liability for damages in defamation suits by public officials.

===Opinion===
[[File:US Supreme Court Justice William Brennan - 1972 official portrait.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.0|Justice William J. Brennan Jr., the author of the Supreme Court's opinion]]
Justice [[William J. Brennan Jr.]] authored the Court's opinion, and five other justices joined it.{{efn|Justices [[Hugo Black]], [[Arthur Goldberg]], and [[William O. Douglas]] only "concurred in the judgment", meaning they agreed the ''Times'' should win but for different legal reasons.}} The Court began by explaining that the ability to criticize public government officials was at the core of the American rights to [[Freedom of speech in the United States|freedom of speech]] and [[Freedom of the press in the United States|freedom of the press]] protected by the First Amendment.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;11.5.3.2, p. 1140}} 
{{Blockquote
|text=The general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions. The constitutional safeguard, we have said, "was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people." ... "[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect taste, on all public institutions." ... The First Amendment, said Judge [[Learned Hand]], "presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all."
|source=''Sullivan'', 376 U.S. at 269–70 (citations omitted).<ref>Quoted in part in {{harvp|Nowak|Rotunda|2012|loc=§&nbsp;20.33(i)}}.</ref> 
}}
The Court said that because of these core American free-speech principles, it would have to consider Sullivan's defamation claims "against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."<ref>{{harvp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;11.5.3.2, p. 1140}} (quoting ''Sullivan'', 376 U.S. at 270).</ref>

With this background, the Court framed the case around the question of whether this American constitutional commitment to free speech required loosening traditional defamation laws.
{{Blockquote
|text=The present advertisement, as an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, would seem clearly to qualify for the constitutional protection. The question is whether it forfeits that protection by the falsity of some of its factual statements and by its alleged defamation of respondent.
|source=''Sullivan'', 376 U.S. at 271.
}}
In answer, the Court held that the free-speech protections of the First Amendment covered the ''Times'' advertisement despite its factual inaccuracies. The Court reasoned that "erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and ... must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the breathing space that they need ... to survive".<ref>{{harvp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;11.5.3.2, p. 1140}}, quoting ''Sullivan'', 376 U.S. at 271–72 (internal quotation marks omitted).</ref> It concluded that the importance of safeguarding the "breathing space" created by the First Amendment's protections required giving constitutional protection to "erroneous statements honestly made".{{sfnp|Nowak|Rotunda|2012|loc=§&nbsp;20.33(ii)}} The Court analogized Alabama's libel law to the infamous [[Alien and Sedition Acts]] passed in the 1790s during the presidency of [[John Adams]].{{sfnp|Nowak|Rotunda|2012|loc=§&nbsp;20.33(ii)}} It reasoned that a broad interpretation of libel laws that protected government officials from criticism would produce situations similar to those under the Alien and Sedition Acts, which had been historically criticized.{{sfnp|Nowak|Rotunda|2012|loc=§&nbsp;20.33(ii)}}

Because of the importance of free debate about public officials, the Court held that it was not enough that Alabama's libel law—like most libel laws in the English [[common law]] tradition—allowed defendants to use the truth of their defamatory statements as a defense.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;11.5.3.2, p. 1140}} Instead, the Court held that under U.S. law, any public official suing for defamation must prove that the defendant made the defamatory statement with "actual malice".
{{Blockquote
|text=The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with "actual malice" – that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
|source=''Sullivan'', 376 U.S. at 279–80.<ref>Quoted in part in {{harvp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;11.5.3.2, p. 1141}}</ref>
}}
The Court said that besides proving "actual malice", the First Amendment's protections also imposed two other limitations on libel laws. First, a public official seeking damages must prove that the defendant's defamatory statement was about the official individually, not about government policy generally. Second, unlike in traditional common law defamation lawsuits where the defendant had the burden to prove that his or her statement was true, in defamation suits involving American public officials the officials must prove that the defendant's statement was false.{{sfnp|Nowak|Rotunda|2012|loc=§&nbsp;20.33(ii)}}

==International comparisons==
The rule that somebody alleging defamation should have to prove untruth, rather than that the defendant should have to prove the truth of a statement, stood as a departure from the previous [[common law]]. In England, the development was specifically rejected in ''Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd''<ref>''Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd'' [1993] AC 534</ref> and it was also rejected in Canada in ''[[Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto]]''<ref>''[[Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto]]'' [1995] 2 SCR 1130</ref> and more recently in ''Grant v. Torstar Corp''.<ref>''[[Grant v. Torstar Corp.]]'' [2009] 2009 SCC 61</ref>  In Australia, the outcome of the case was followed in ''[[Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd|Theophanous v. The Herald & Weekly Times Ltd]]'',<ref>''[[Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd|Theophanous v. The Herald & Weekly Times Ltd]]'' (1994) 182 CLR 104</ref> but ''Theophanous'' was itself overruled by the High Court of Australia in ''[[Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation]]'' (1997) 189 CLR 520.

==50th anniversary==
In 2014, on the 50th anniversary of the ruling, ''The New York Times'' released an editorial in which it stated the background of the case, laid out the rationale for the Supreme Court decision, critically reflected on the state of freedom of the press 50 years after the ruling and compared the state of freedom of the press in the United States with other nations. The editorial board of ''The New York Times'' heralded the ''Sullivan'' decision not only as a ruling which "instantly changed libel law in the United States", but also as "the clearest and most forceful defense of press freedom in American history."<ref name="NYT 2014-03-09">{{cite news|title=The Uninhibited Press, 50 Years Later|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/opinion/sunday/the-uninhibited-press-50-years-later.html |access-date=11 March 2014|newspaper=The New York Times|date=9 March 2014|author=The New York Times Editorial Board|quote=A version of this editorial appeared in print on March 9, 2014, on page SR10 of the New York edition with the headline: The Uninhibited Press, 50 Years Later.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210110031037/https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/opinion/sunday/the-uninhibited-press-50-years-later.html|archive-date=January 10, 2021}}</ref> The board added:

{{blockquote|The ruling was revolutionary because the court for the first time rejected virtually any attempt to squelch criticism of public officials—even if false—as antithetical to "the central meaning of the First Amendment." Today, our understanding of freedom of the press comes in large part from the Sullivan case. Its core observations and principles remain unchallenged, even as the Internet has turned everyone into a worldwide publisher—capable of calling public officials instantly to account for their actions and also of ruining reputations with the click of a mouse.<ref name="NYT 2014-03-09" />}}

In a 2015 ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' magazine survey of over 50 law professors, both [[Owen Fiss]] ([[Yale Law School|Yale]]) and Steven Shiffrin ([[Cornell Law School|Cornell]]) named ''New York Times v. Sullivan'' "the best Supreme Court decision since 1960", with Fiss noting that the decision helped cement "the free-speech traditions that have ensured the vibrancy of American democracy" and Schiffrin remarking that the case "overturned the [[Censorship|censorial]] aspects of the law of [[libel]] and made it far easier in what’s left of our democracy for citizens—including the [[Fourth Estate]]—to criticize the powerful."<ref name="Time 2021-02-10">{{cite magazine |last1=Sachs |first1=Andrea |title=The Best Supreme Court Decisions Since 1960 |url=https://time.com/4055934/best-supreme-court-decisions/ |access-date=February 10, 2021 |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210210202539/https://time.com/4055934/best-supreme-court-decisions/ |archive-date=February 10, 2021}}</ref>

==Later developments==
*''[[Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts]]'', 388 U.S. 130 (1967) held that public figures who are not public officials may still sue news organizations if they disseminate information about them which is recklessly gathered and unchecked.
*''[[Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.]]'', 418 U.S. 323 (1974): Actual malice not necessary for defamation of private person if negligence is present.
* ''[[Time, Inc. v. Hill]]'', 385 U.S. 374 (1967). Extension of actual malice standard to [[false light]] invasion of privacy tort.
*''[[Hustler Magazine v. Falwell]]'', 485 U.S. 46 (1988): Extending standard to [[intentional infliction of emotional distress]].
*''[[Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.]]'', 497 U.S. 1 (1990): Existing law is sufficient to protect free speech without recognizing [[opinion privilege]] against libel claims.

==Further developments==
The potential for reconsideration of the precedent of ''Sullivan'' were raised in the late 2010s and early 2020s.<ref name="nytimes liptak 2021">{{cite news | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/briefing/first-amendment-taliban-afghanistan.html | title = A First Amendment Precedent | first = Adam | last = Liptak | date = August 18, 2021 | accessdate = February 9, 2025 | work = [[The New York Times]] }}</ref> Leading into and during his first presidency from 2016 to 2020, [[Donald Trump]] called for changes in libel laws, taking issue with reporting from ''The New York Times'' and the content of [[Bob Woodward]]'s book, ''[[Fear: Trump in the White House]]'' in 2018.<ref>{{cite news | url = https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/18/donald-trump-threatens-to-sue-new-york-times-over-irresponsible-intent | title = Donald Trump threatens to sue New York Times over 'irresponsible intent' | first = Ben | last = Jacobs | date = September 17, 2016 | accessdate = February 9, 2025 | work = [[The Guardian]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/can-trump-change-libel-laws.html | title = Trump, Angry Over Woodward Book, Renews Criticism of Libel Laws | first1 = Adam | last1 = Liptak | first2 = Eileen | last2 = Sullivan | date = September 5, 2018 | accessdate = February 9, 2025 | work = [[The New York Times]] }}</ref>

Trump's opinion was supported by Supreme Court justice [[Clarence Thomas]] in various court opinions that followed.<ref>{{cite news | url = https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-attacks-first-amendment-press-gain-ally-supreme-court-ncna973431 | title = Trump's attacks on the First Amendment and the press gain an ally in Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas | first = Steve | last = Vladeck | date = February 20, 2019 | accessdate = February 9, 2025 | work = [[NBC News]] }}</ref> Thomas advocated reevaluating ''Sullivan'' in an opinion attached to the court's 2019 denial to hear a libel case brought by Katherine McKee, one of the women that [[Bill Cosby sexual assault cases|accused]] [[Bill Cosby]] of sexual assault. McKee claimed Cosby had leaked a letter that permanently damaged her reputation. Lower courts rejected her case based on ''Sullivan'', stating that she "thrust herself to the forefront of a public controversy", making her a limited public figure and requiring the higher standard of malice to be demonstrated. While Thomas wrote that the Court's decision to deny certification of McKee's appeal based on ''Sullivan'' was correct, he further said that ''Sullivan'' was made wrongly, and that "If the Constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard in state-law defamation suits, then neither should we".<ref name="NBC Thomas">{{cite web | url = https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/justice-clarence-thomas-criticizes-supreme-court-landmark-press-freedom-ruling-n973176 | title = Justice Clarence Thomas criticizes landmark Supreme Court press freedom ruling | first = Pete | last= Williams | date = February 19, 2019 | access-date = February 19, 2019 | work = [[NBC News]] }}</ref> Thomas also repeated calls to review ''Sullivan'' in his dissent in ''Berisha v. Lawson'' in 2021 and in his dissent to the court's denial to hear [[Don Blankenship]]'s appeal, in the latter saying that ''Sullivan'' allows news agencies to "cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity".<ref>{{Cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |date=2023-10-10 |title=Clarence Thomas Renews Call for Reconsideration of Landmark Libel Ruling |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/10/us/clarence-thomas-libel-supreme-court.html |access-date=2023-11-24 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> Justice [[Neil Gorsuch]] also joined in Thomas in ''Berisha'' in expressing his concerns of how the media landscape had changed since ''Sullivan''.<ref>{{cite news | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/02/us/supreme-court-libel.html | title = Two Justices Say Supreme Court Should Reconsider Landmark Libel Decision | first = Adam | last = Liptak | date = July 2, 2021 | accessdate = February 9, 2025 | work = [[The New York Times]] }}</ref>

Federal judge [[Laurence Silberman]] called on the Supreme Court to overturn ''New York Times v. Sullivan'' in a March 2021 opinion, stating that the ''New York Times'' and ''The Washington Post'' are "virtually Democratic Party broadsheets".<ref name="nytimes liptak 2021"/> Silberman's dissent also accused [[big tech]] companies of censoring conservatives and warned that "Democratic Party ideological control" of mainstream media may be a prelude to an "authoritarian or dictatorial regime" that constitutes "a threat to a viable democracy".<ref>{{cite web| url = https://lawandcrime.com/first-amendment/reagan-appointed-circuit-judge-issues-scathing-dissent-calling-nyt-and-wapo-democratic-party-broadsheets-praising-fox-news| title = Judge Laurence Silberman: New York Times v. Sullivan 'Must Go'| date = 19 March 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C5F7840A6FFFCF648525869D004ECAC5/$file/19-7132-1890626.pdf|access-date=18 April 2023|website=uscourts.gov|title=Appeal document|date=March 19, 2021}}</ref>

Las Vegas casino owner [[Steve Wynn]] had filed defamation lawsuits against the [[Associated Press]] in 2018, claiming that articles published by the agency that contained allegations related to Wynn and sexual assault in the 1970s. Wynn argued that the Associated Press had used actual malice in their reporting. The Nevada courts dismissed Wynn's suit, arguing he had failed to show "actual malice" under the ''Sullivan'' decision. Wynn subsequently has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his case in February 2025, asking them to overturn the "actual malice" standard of ''Sullivan''.<ref>{{cite news | url = https://www.reuters.com/legal/casino-mogul-wynn-asks-us-supreme-court-revisit-times-v-sullivan-defamation-rule-2025-02-07/ | title = Casino mogul Wynn asks US Supreme Court to revisit Times v. Sullivan defamation rule | first = John | last = Kruzel | date = February 7, 2025 | accessdate = February 19, 2025 | work = [[Reuters]] }}</ref> The Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari to Wynn's case in March 2025.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5210452-supreme-court-steve-wynn-libel/|title=Supreme Court declines Steve Wynn’s bid to loosen libel standard|first=Zach|last=Schonfeld|date=March 24, 2025}}</ref>

On March 19, 2023, ''The New York Times'' published a story reviewing the original advertisement and the legal case.<ref>{{cite news |author=David W. Dunlap |date=March 19, 2023 |title=The Ad in the First Amendment |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/19/insider/the-ad-in-the-first-amendment.html}}</ref>

==See also==
* ''[[New York Times Co. v. United States]]'' (1971)
* ''[[New York Times Co. v. Tasini]]'' (2001)
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 376]]
* [[Rod Nachman]]

==References==
===Footnotes===
{{notelist}}

===Citations===
{{Reflist|25em}}

===Works cited===
* {{cite book | first=Erwin | last=Chemerinsky | authorlink=Erwin Chemerinsky | title=Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies | edition= 6th | location=New York | publisher=Wolters Kluwer | year=2019 | isbn=978-1-4548-4947-6 }}
* {{cite book | first1=John E. | last1=Nowak | first2=Ronald D. | last2=Rotunda | title=Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure | year=2012 | location=Eagan, Minnesota | publisher=West| edition= 5th | oclc = 798148265 }}

==Further reading==
*Barbas, Samantha. ''Actual Malice: Civil Rights and Freedom of the Press in New York Times v. Sullivan''. Oakland: University of California Press, 2023.
*{{Cite book |chapter=New York Times v. Sullivan |last=Burnett |first=Nicholas F. |title=Free Speech on Trial: Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions |url=https://archive.org/details/freespeechontria00park_009 |url-access=limited |editor=Parker, Richard A.|year=2003 |publisher=University of Alabama Press |location=Tuscaloosa, AL |isbn=0-8173-1301-X |pages=[https://archive.org/details/freespeechontria00park_009/page/n126 116]–129 }}
* Edmondson, Aimee. "Rearticulating ''New York Times v. Sullivan'' as a Social Duty to Journalists", ''Journalism Studies'' 18, no. 1 (Jan 2017): 86–101. response to Donald Trump's campaign promise to " "open up" libel laws to make it easier for officeholders to sue the media.
*{{Cite book |title=New York Times V. Sullivan: Affirming Freedom of the Press |last=Fireside |first=Harvey |year=1999 |publisher=Enslow Publishers, Inc. |location=Berkeley Heights, NJ |isbn=978-0-7660-1085-7 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/newyorktimesvsul00harv }}
*{{Cite book |title=Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment |last=Lewis |first=Anthony |author-link=Anthony Lewis |year=1991 |publisher=Random House |location=New York |isbn=0-394-58774-X |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/makenolawsulliva00lewi }}
*{{Cite news |first=Dahlia |last=Lithwick |title=Target Practice: Justice Scalia sets his sights on ''New York Times Co. v. Sullivan'' |url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2007/07/target_practice.html |work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |date=2007-07-17 |access-date=2013-03-25 }}
* {{cite journal|journal=Presidential Studies Quarterly|volume=22|issue=4|date=Fall 1992|title=Limits on Free Speech and Press|author1-first=M. Roland|author1-last=Nachman Jr.|author1-link=Rod Nachman|pages=731&ndash;739|jstor=27551036}}
*{{cite journal|last1=Schmidt|first1=Christopher|title=New York Times v. Sullivan and the Legal Attack on the Civil Rights Movement|journal=Alabama Law Review|date=2014|volume=66|pages=293–335|url=https://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2066/Issue%202/Schmidt%20.pdf}}
* Smolla, Rodney A. ''Suing the Press: Libel, the Media, and Power''. NY: Oxford University Press, 1986.
*{{cite journal | last = Watson | first = John C. | year = 2002 | title = ''Times v. Sullivan'': Landmark or Land Mine on the Road to Ethical Journalism? | journal = Journal of Mass Media Ethics | volume = 17 | issue = 1 | pages = 3–19 | doi = 10.1207/S15327728JMME1701_02 | s2cid = 144013866 }}

==External links==
{{wikiquote}}
*{{wikisource-inline|New York Times v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254)|'' New York Times v. Sullivan'' (376 U.S. 254)}}
*{{Caselaw source
 | case=''New York Times Co. v. Sullivan'', {{ussc|376|254|1964|el=no}}
 | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/106761/new-york-times-co-v-sullivan/
 | findlaw=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/376/254.html
 | justia=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/
 | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39
 | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep376/usrep376254/usrep376254.pdf
 | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10183527771703896207
 | other_source1 = Boston College
 | other_url1 =http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvsullivan.html
}}
*[https://www.c-span.org/video/?22178-1/make-law-sullivan-case ''Booknotes'' interview with Anthony Lewis on ''Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment'', October 20, 1991.]

{{US1stAmendment Freedom of Speech Clause Supreme Court case law|state=collapsed}}
{{US1stAmendment Freedom of the Press Clause Supreme Court case law}}
{{The New York Times}}

[[Category:1964 in United States case law]]
[[Category:United States defamation case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Free Speech Clause case law]]
[[Category:History of mass media in the United States]]
[[Category:United States tort case law]]
[[Category:The New York Times lawsuits]]
[[Category:American Civil Liberties Union litigation]]
[[Category:Civil rights movement case law]]
[[Category:African-American history of Alabama]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court]]