Gertz v.

Robert Welch
418 US 323 | June 25, 1974

BURGER, J.

So long as they do not impose liability without fault, states are free to establish their
own standards of liability for defamatory statements made about private individuals.
However, if the state standard is lower than actual malice, the standard applying to
public figures, then only actual damages may be awarded. The plaintiff must be able to
show that the defendant acted negligently or with an even higher level of mens rea.

FACTS

Review on certiorari
• In 1968, a Chicago police officer, Richard Nuccio, shot and killed a young man
(Ronald Nelson). After the officer was convicted of second-degree murder, the
victim's family retained a lawyer, Elmer Gertz, to represent them in civil litigation
against the officer.
• A year later, American Opinion, a publication of the John Birch Society, ran a series
of articles falsely alleging the existence of a Communist conspiracy to discredit local
police agencies and thus facilitate their replacement by a national police force that
could more effectively implement the dictatorship they planned to impose on the
country.
• One of those touched on the Nuccio case, claiming that the officer had been framed at
his criminal trial and making strong allegations about Gertz. It claimed that Gertz had
orchestrated Nuccio's conviction and that he was a member of various communist
front organizations.
• It further implied that he had a lengthy criminal record himself and used various anti-
communist terms of abuse ("Leninist", "Communist-fronter") to describe him.
• Gertz won a jury verdict and an award of $50,000 but lost his libel suit because the
trial judge found that the magazine had not violated the actual malice test for libel

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the First Amendment allows a newspaper or broadcaster to assert defamatory

falsehoods about an individual who is neither a public official nor a public figure.
YES.

The Court reversed the lower court decision, holding that Gertz's rights had
been violated and ordering a new trial.

The Court argued that the application of the New York Times v. Sullivan
standard in this case was inappropriate because Gertz was neither a public
official nor a public figure. Gertz had achieved no general fame or notoriety in
the community, despite some public service in his past, and therefore did not
meet the Sullivan or Curtis tests. He plainly did not thrust himself into the
vortex of this public issue, nor did he engage the public's attention in an
attempt to influence its outcome.
Furthermore, the Court advanced many lines of reasoning to establish that
ordinary citizens should be allowed more protection from libellous statements
than individuals in the public eye. First, the recklessness standard applies only
to defamation of public figures or public officials. Second, even for private
individuals, states may not impose strict liability on news media. And third,
any standard of fault less then recklessness limits private persons to actual
injury.

However, in the one aspect of the decision that was favourable to

the appellees, the Court also ruled that states could not impose a strict
liability standard for defamation (i.e., plaintiffs had to be able to show fault of
some kind) and that juries could not be allowed to award punitive damages,
such as the $50,000 Gertz had received, absent any showing of actual malice,
since juries could use that power to punish unpopular opinions. A new trial
was ordered.

Petition is REMANDED.