Ollman v. Evans Et Al.

Background

A university political science professor sued two nationally syndicated columnists after they printed a column quoting an unnamed scholar who said the professor “has no status within the profession” and called him an “activist.” The federal district court granted summary judgment for the columnists. On appeal, the full Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed by a 6–5 vote, holding that the statement could not form the basis of a defamation action under the First Amendment.

Reasoning

The central question presented to the Supreme Court was whether the appellate court’s First Amendment reading should be reviewed. The Supreme Court declined to review the case, leaving the Court of Appeals’ ruling intact. The D.C. Circuit majority relied in part on a passage from an earlier decision saying the First Amendment protects false “ideas” and that opinions are corrected in the marketplace of ideas rather than in court. In his dissent from the denial, Justice Rehnquist argued the columnists’ remark was an assertion of fact about the professor’s professional standing and that such statements can be especially damaging to academics.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused review, the appellate decision stands and similar published statements by columnists may not support defamation lawsuits in that circuit. The ruling leaves academics with limited legal recourse against certain professional criticisms in widely read columns while the law on when opinion becomes actionable remains contested.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Rehnquist, joined by the Chief Justice, dissented and said he would have granted review, arguing the statement should be actionable and warrants clarification by this Court.