Professor Thomas Healy on New York Times v. Sullivan

Professor Thomas Healy explains why the landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision remains central to protections for speech about public officials. 

---

For Constitution Day, Thomas Healy, the Board of Visitors Distinguished Professor of Law at Seton Hall Law School who teaches the First Amendment, points to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan as a landmark Supreme Court decision protecting speech about government and public officials. 

“I think it’s the most important case in First Amendment law,” Healy said. The 1964 decision established that public officials cannot recover damages for defamatory false statements about their official conduct unless they show the speaker knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for whether they were true. 

The case resulted from a paid advertisement published in The New York Times during the civil rights movement seeking donations for the legal defense of Martin Luther King Jr. and describing the treatment of civil rights demonstrators in Alabama. The advertisement contained several minor factual inaccuracies. 

L.B. Sullivan, a Montgomery, Alabama, city commissioner who oversaw the police department, sued the Times and several individuals named in the advertisement. An Alabama jury awarded Sullivan $500,000 in damages. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment, holding that the First Amendment requires greater protection for criticism of public officials. 

For Healy, the ruling’s significance lies in protecting mistakes made during public debate. Under the Alabama standard, he said, “regardless how hard you worked, how careful you were, if you got it wrong, you were subject to liability.” 

The Supreme Court instead recognized the need for “breathing space” in public debate. Without it, Healy said, people could hesitate to speak about government even when they believe they are reporting accurately. “You are not likely to talk freely and openly about the government,” he said. 

Healy points to Elon Musk to illustrate how the principle applies to prominent public figures today. Because Musk is a public figure, he must meet the higher standard to prevail in a defamation claim. “It’s hard to show that somebody knew something was false,” Healy said. “Basically, you’d have to show that they were lying.” 

Social media has further changed the reach of the Sullivan standard. When the case was decided in 1964, major news organizations were among the few institutions with the ability to reach large audiences. Today, individuals can address millions of people through social media. The protection also extends beyond traditional news organizations. Healy said the same constitutional standard can protect individuals who make false and defamatory statements about public figures on social media. 

Healy also emphasizes the decision’s importance to the civil rights movement. In his view, the lawsuits that gave rise to Sullivan were part of an effort by Southern segregationists to limit national news coverage of the movement. Without that coverage, he said, civil rights demonstrators would have had a more difficult time spreading their message and gaining public support. He cited the late Rep. John Lewis, who said, “Without the press, the civil rights movement would have been like a bird without wings.” 
More than 60 years after the Supreme Court decided New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Healy sees the case as central to the First Amendment and to Americans’ ability to question those in power, challenge official conduct and participate in public debate. 

For Healy, that freedom depends on allowing room for mistakes. Without it, the fear of getting something wrong could silence voices that are essential to a free society. Sullivan, he argues, helps ensure that the price of speaking out is not perfection. To learn more about the case, read Samantha Barbas’ Actual Malice: Civil Rights and Freedom of the Press in New York Times v. Sullivan and Healy’s review of the book in the Michigan Law Review.