Coughlin Et Ux. v. Westinghouse Broadcasting & Cable, Inc.

Background

A police officer and his wife sued a television broadcaster after a report aired a videotape of the officer leaving a bar on October 11, 1981. The broadcast suggested the officer accepted a bribe, showed a circled object the program called an “envelope,” and noted the officer lacked certain uniform items and had trouble finding a key. The station conducted an undercover investigation and later did an ambush-style interview with the officer months after the event. The officer said the “envelope” was his incident report book and that he had been on duty investigating vandalism that night.

Reasoning

The lower federal court found there was a genuine factual dispute about whether the broadcast’s statements were true, but applied the established New York Times rule and concluded the officer had not shown the level of fault—called “actual malice”—needed to survive summary judgment. The court of appeals agreed and affirmed that outcome. The Supreme Court declined to review that ruling. Chief Justice Burger dissented from the denial and said the Court should take the case to reconsider the New York Times standard.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to take the case, the lower-court decisions stand. That means the demanding proof standard for defamation involving news reports remains in place for now. The ruling makes it harder for people accused in media reports to win libel suits in similar circumstances and leaves unresolved whether the high rule should be reconsidered.

Dissents or concurrances

Chief Justice Burger, joined by Justice Rehnquist, would have granted review to reconsider the New York Times precedent and hear full argument on the issue.