Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

Facts

Liberty Lobby, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation that called itself a “citizens’ lobby,” and Willis Carto, its founder and treasurer, were the subjects of articles in The Investigator magazine. In October 1981 the magazine published two articles about them, introduced by a third, shorter article. The articles portrayed Liberty Lobby and Carto as neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist, and Fascist. They sued for libel in federal court in the District of Columbia, alleging that some 28 statements and 2 illustrations in the 3 articles were false and derogatory. The defendants were Jack Anderson, the magazine's publisher, Bill Adkins, president and chief executive officer of Investigator Publishing Co., and the company itself. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment. They argued that Liberty Lobby and Carto were public figures who had to prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard of whether a statement was false), and that actual malice was absent as a matter of law. They filed an affidavit from Charles Bermant, who wrote the two longer articles. Bermant said he had spent a substantial amount of time researching and writing, drew his facts from a wide variety of sources, and believed the facts were truthful and accurate. Liberty Lobby and Carto opposed the motion. They pointed to inaccuracies, said Bermant relied on patently unreliable sources, and said the defendants failed adequately to verify their information. They also presented evidence that an editor, William McGaw, told Adkins before publication that the articles were “terrible” and “ridiculous.”

Issues

1. Must a court ruling on a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 consider the clear-and-convincing-evidence requirement that applies to proof of actual malice in a libel case governed by New York Times?
2. When is a dispute about a material fact “genuine” under Rule 56, so that summary judgment is not proper?

Holding

In a case to which New York Times applies, a court ruling on summary judgment must be guided by the clear-and-convincing standard. It asks whether a reasonable jury might find actual malice shown with convincing clarity. The Court of Appeals used the wrong standard, so its decision was vacated and the case remanded.