Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy

Background

Three days before the New Hampshire Democratic primary for United States Senate, the Concord Monitor published a syndicated column calling candidate Alphonse Roy a "former small-time bootlegger." Roy lost the primary and sued the newspaper and the column’s distributor, NANA, for libel. At trial the defendants offered truth and good-faith defenses. The judge instructed the jury that Roy, as a candidate, was a public official and allowed the jury to decide whether the bootlegger charge was "relevant" to his fitness for office. The jury returned a $20,000 verdict against the newspaper and NANA, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether accusations of past criminal conduct about a candidate must be judged under the New York Times "actual malice" rule. The Court held that any charge of criminal conduct, no matter how remote in time or place, can never be deemed irrelevant to a candidate’s fitness for office. Because that relevance question cannot be left to a jury using a simple preponderance test, the trial instructions were unconstitutional. The Court reversed the judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with applying the higher "actual malice" standard (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard).

Real world impact

The decision strengthens constitutional protection for statements about candidates’ past conduct and makes it harder for candidates to win libel awards over such accusations. News organizations and campaign reporters gain greater breathing room when reporting on candidates’ histories. The case was reversed and remanded, so factual liability may still be resolved on retrial under the correct legal standard.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Black, joined by Justice Douglas, agreed with reversing but objected to retrying the cases and urged abandoning the New York Times rule to give even broader press protection.