President Donald Trump is again attacking the American
press – this time not with fiery rally speeches or by calling the media “the
enemy of the people,” but through the courts.
Since the heat of the November 2024 election, and
continuing into July, Trump has filed defamation lawsuits against
“60 Minutes” broadcaster CBS News and The
Wall Street Journal. He has also sued the Des
Moines Register for publishing a poll just before the 2024 election
that Trump alleges exaggerated support for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris
and thus constituted election interference and fraud.
These are in addition to other
lawsuits Trump filed against the news media during his first term and
during his years out of office between 2021 and 2025.
At the heart of Trump’s complaints is a familiar refrain:
The media is not only biased, but dishonest, corrupt and dangerous.
The president isn’t just upset about reporting on him
that he thinks is unfair. He wants
to redefine what counts as libel and make it easier for public
officials to sue for damages. A libel suit is a civil tort claim seeking
damages when a person believes something false has been printed or broadcast
about them and so harmed their reputation.
Redefining libel in this way would require overturning
the Supreme Court’s 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,
one of the most important First Amendment legal rulings in American
constitutional history
Trump made overturning
Sullivan a talking point during his first campaign for president; his
lawsuits now put that threat into action. And they raise the question: What
happened in Sullivan, and why does it still matter?
President Donald Trump discusses U.S. libel laws on Jan.
10, 2018, calling them a ‘sham’ and a ‘disgrace’ during comments to reporters
at the White House.
What Sullivan was about
As chair of
a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I
have written two books
about the media
and the presidency, and another about
media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and
why healthy democracies rely on free expression.
In 1960, The New York Times published a full-page
advertisement titled “Heed Their Rising Voices”. The ad, which included an
appeal for readers to send money in support of Martin Luther King Jr. and the movement against Jim Crow,
described brutal and unjust treatment of Black students and protesters in
Montgomery, Alabama. It also emphasized episodes of police violence against
peaceful demonstrations.
The ad was not
entirely accurate in its description of the behavior of either
protesters or the police.
It claimed, for instance, that activists had sung “My
Country ’Tis of Thee” on the steps of the state capitol during a rally, when
they actually had sung the national anthem. It said that “truckloads of police
armed with shotguns and tear-gas” had “ringed” a college campus, when the
police had only been deployed nearby. And it asserted that King had been
arrested seven times in Alabama, when the real number was four.
Though the ad did not identify any individual public
officials by name, it disparaged the behavior of Montgomery police.
That’s
where L.B. Sullivan came in.
As Montgomery’s police commissioner, he oversaw the
police department. Sullivan claimed that because the ad maligned the conduct of
law enforcement, it had implicitly defamed him. In
1960 in Alabama, a primary defense against libel was truth. But since
there were mistakes in the ad, a truth defense could not be raised. Sullivan
sued for damages, and an Alabama jury awarded him US$500,000, equivalent to
$5,450,000 in 2025.
The message to the press was clear: criticize Southern
officials and risk being sued out of existence.
In fact, the Sullivan lawsuit was not an isolated
incident, but part of a broader strategy.
In addition to Sullivan, four other Montgomery officials filed suits against
the Times.
In Birmingham, public officials filed seven libel
lawsuits over Times reporter Harrison Salisbury’s trenchant reporting about
racism in that city. The lawsuits helped push the Times to the edge of
bankruptcy. Salisbury was even indicted for seditious libel
and faced up to 21 years in prison.
Alabama
officials also sued CBS, The Associated Press, the Saturday Evening
Post and Ladies’ Home Journal – all for reporting on civil rights and the
South’s brutal response.
Montgomery, Ala., Police Commissioner L.B. Sullivan,
second left, and his attorneys celebrate his $500,000 libel suit victory in a
county court on Nov. 3, 1960. Bettman/Getty
Images
The Supreme Court decision
The jury’s verdict in favor of Sullivan was unanimously
overturned by the Supreme Court in 1964.
Writing for the court, Justice William Brennan held that
public officials cannot prevail in defamation lawsuits merely by showing that
statements are false. Instead, they must prove
such statements are made with “actual malice”. Actual malice means a
reporter or press outlet knew their story was false or else acted with reckless
disregard for the truth.
The decision set a high bar.
Before the ruling, the First Amendment’s protections for
speech and the press didn’t offer much help to the press in libel cases.
After it, public officials who wanted to sue the press
would have to prove “actual malice” – real, purposeful untruths that caused
harm. Honest mistakes weren’t enough to prevail in such lawsuits. The court
held that errors are inevitable in public debate and that protecting those
mistakes is essential to keeping debate open and free.
Nonviolent protest and the press
In essence, the court ruling blocked government officials
from suing for libel with ulterior motives.
King and other civil rights leaders relied on a strategy
of nonviolent protest to expose injustice through public, visible
actions.
When protesters were arrested, beaten or hosed in the
streets, their goal was not chaos – it was clarity. They wanted the nation to
see what Southern oppression looked like. For that, they needed press coverage.
If Sullivan’s lawsuit had succeeded, it could have bullied
the press away from covering civil rights altogether. The Supreme
Court recognized this danger.
Public officials treated differently
Another key element of the court’s reasoning was
its distinction
between public officials and private citizens.
Elected leaders, the court said, can use mass media to
defend themselves in ways ordinary people cannot.
“The public official certainly has equal if not greater
access than most
private citizens to media of communication,” Justice Brennan wrote in the
Sullivan ruling.
Trump is a perfect
example of this dynamic. He masterfully uses social media, rallies,
televised interviews and impromptu remarks to push back. He doesn’t need the
courts.
Giving public officials the power to sue over news
stories they dislike could well
create a chilling effect on the media that undermines government
accountability and distorts public discourse.
“The theory of our Constitution is that every citizen may
speak his mind and every newspaper express its view on matters of public
concern and may not be barred from speaking or publishing because those in
control of government think that what is said or written is unwise,” Brennan
wrote.
“In a democratic society, one who assumes to act for the
citizens in an executive, legislative, or judicial capacity must expect that
his official acts will be commented upon and criticized.”
Why Sullivan still matters
The Sullivan ruling is more
than a legal doctrine. It is a shared agreement about the kind of democracy
Americans aspire to. It affirms a press duty to hold power to account, and a
public right to hear facts and information that those in power want to
suppress.
The ruling protects the right to criticize those in power
and affirms that the press is not a nuisance, but an essential part of a
functioning democracy. It ensures that political leaders cannot insulate
themselves from scrutiny by silencing their critics through intimidation or
litigation.
Trump’s lawsuits seek to undo these press protections. He
presents himself as the victim of a dishonest press and hopes to use the legal
system to punish those he perceives to be his detractors.
The decision in the Sullivan case reminds Americans that democracy doesn’t depend on leaders who feel comfortable. It depends on a public that is free to speak.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.