Ginzburg Et Al. v. Goldwater

1969-08-13

Headline: Court denies review and lets a jury’s libel and punitive-damage awards against a magazine and its editor stand, affecting journalists and publishers who criticize political candidates.

Holding: The Court refused to review the appeal, leaving the lower courts’ libel verdict and punitive damages against a magazine and its editor for critical articles about a presidential candidate in place.

Real World Impact:

Leaves a libel verdict and $75,000 punitive damages against a magazine and its editor in place.
Signals risk of heavy punishments for publishers who sharply criticize political figures.
May make journalists more cautious about harsh or speculative commentary on candidates.

Topics: libel law, free press, political speech, punitive damages

Summary

Background

Shortly before the 1964 Presidential election, Fact magazine published a special issue saying Senator Barry Goldwater was paranoid and unfit for office. The issue cited incidents from his life and reported results from a poll of psychiatrists. Goldwater sued the magazine, its author, and its editor in federal court. After a 15-day trial, a jury awarded Goldwater $1 in compensatory damages and $75,000 in punitive damages ($25,000 against the editor and $50,000 against the magazine). The Second Circuit applied the Court’s New York Times rule requiring proof of knowing falsity or reckless disregard, and it affirmed the libel award. The magazine and editor then asked this Court to review that judgment.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the defendants had been properly protected by the First Amendment under the “actual malice” standard when they published harsh criticism of a public figure. This Court declined to hear the appeal, so the lower courts’ findings and the jury’s award remain in place. The Second Circuit had concluded the trial gave the defendants the protection required by prior First Amendment decisions but nonetheless upheld the punitive awards as justified by the evidence.

Real world impact

By denying review, the Supreme Court left the lower-court verdict and substantial punitive damages intact, which directly affects publishers and writers who sharply criticize public figures. Because the Court did not decide the merits, this outcome is not a new Supreme Court ruling on libel doctrine and could be revisited in later cases. The denial may nonetheless make some journalists more cautious about provocative or speculative commentary about candidates.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Black, joined by Justice Douglas, dissented from the denial. He argued for an absolute First Amendment right to print about public affairs, said the New York Times rule was inadequate, and would have granted review and reversed the punitive award as a threat to open political debate.