Court Eases Way for Media to Win Libel Suit Dismissals

The Supreme Court eased the way Wednesday for news organizations to defend against libel suits, ruling that cases brought by public figures must be dismissed before trial unless they show “clear and convincing” evidence to back their claims.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices ordered a federal appeals court to consider dismissing a suit brought against columnist Jack Anderson by an organization called the Liberty Lobby.

The case centered on how much evidence public figures need to defeat a pretrial motion by the defense for dismissal of what it contends is a case so weak that it should not go to a jury.

Save Time, Expense

Summary judgments are important to news organizations because they can save the considerable time and expense of trial. Also, studies show, libel defendants usually lose cases that go to trial--although they tend to win on appeal.

The high court applied to summary proceedings the same higher “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard it previously had applied to trials of libel suits by public figures. Such plaintiffs must show that defendants acted with “actual malice”--with knowledge that the article was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Several federal and state courts, including California’s, have applied the higher standard to summary judgments, but others have not.

In addition, the court issued a significant clarification of a statement it had made in a 1979 case suggesting that it did not favor summary dispositions in libel suits. That statement, the justices said Wednesday, simply acknowledged “our general reluctance” to grant libel defendants special procedural protections beyond established constitutional defenses.

Confusion Seen

But the court provided little guidance to help trial judges in actually applying the “clear and convincing” standard--and dissenters warned that the ruling would merely create inconsistency and confusion.

Justice William H. Rehnquist, joined by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, said that the majority opinion “sounds much like a treatise about cooking by someone who has never cooked before and has no intention of starting now.”

The case arose when the Liberty Lobby, a self-described “citizens’ lobby,” and its founder, Willis Carto, filed suit against Anderson over two articles printed in a 1981 issue of the Investigator, a magazine published by Anderson. The articles portrayed the group and Carto as neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist and fascist.

A federal District Court upheld Anderson’s motion for a summary judgment and dismissed the case, finding that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs would be insufficient to win at trial.

But a federal appeals court here reinstated the action in a 2-1 decision written by Judge Antonin Scalia, recently nominated for the Supreme Court by President Reagan. The appellate court said that making the plaintiff show “clear and convincing” evidence of malice was too high a standard to apply before trial.

Opinion by White

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Byron R. White (Anderson vs. Liberty Lobby, 84-1602), said that the appeals court had erred in not applying the higher requirement. That standard must apply when judges are asked to rule on whether a “reasonable jury” might find in favor of a public figure who brings a libel suit, the court said.

White said that the ruling was not intended to “denigrate the role of the jury” and that weighing the evidence and determining the credibility of witnesses were still the basic functions of jurors.

But, in dissent, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. called the ruling “deeply flawed,” saying that it would be applicable to a wide range of civil cases not involving the press and could unfairly require plaintiffs to disclose all their evidence before trial. If judges are really to “weigh” evidence before trial, “grave concerns are raised” about the constitutional rights of all civil litigants to a jury trial, Brennan said.

David J. Branson, the attorney for Anderson, praised the court for putting “a higher hurdle in front of a libel plaintiff,” adding that the columnist was “delighted.”

Mark Lane, the attorney for Liberty Lobby, assailed the court for succumbing to the “power of the press” and “denying to the American people the right to trial by jury.” But he added that he was confident his clients could meet “this or any other standard” and ultimately win the case.

Rezoning Issue Unresolved

In other action, the justices:

--Decided, for the fourth time in five years, not to rule on whether property owners must be compensated when a local government rezones their land.

The latest case began when a developer who wanted to build 159 single-family homes near Davis, Calif., was unable to obtain street, sewage and water permits from Yolo County. Last year, the justices agreed to hear an appeal that posed the closely watched question of whether such an action is “taking” of property in violation of the Constitution. But, after examining the record, the court on a 5-4 vote concluded that the case was not final because it was not clear what the developer can do with the property (MacDonald, Sommer and Frates vs. Yolo County, 84-2015).

--Turned back an attempt by the Reagan Administration to restrict the long-established right of labor unions or other organizations to represent their members in federal lawsuits.

In a 5-4 decision, the court reinstated a suit brought by the United Auto Workers seeking an estimated $200 million in supplemental unemployment benefits under a law designed to help employees laid off because of competition from imports. The Administration had urged the court to hold that challenges to federal regulations and certain other suits must be brought by individuals or as class actions.