McDonald v. Smith

1985 United States Supreme Court case
McDonald v. Smith
Argued March 20, 1985
Decided June 19, 1985
Full case nameRobert McDonald v. David I. Smith
Citations472 U.S. 479 (more)
105 S. Ct. 2787; 86 L. Ed. 2d 384; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 112; 53 U.S.L.W. 4789
Case history
PriorPetitioner removed the case to Federal District Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. District Court rejected absolute immunity. Upheld on appeal, Fourth Circuit.
Holding
The Petition Clause does not provide absolute immunity to defendants charged with expressing libelous and damaging falsehoods in petitions to Government officials.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityBurger, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor
ConcurrenceBrennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun
Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the right to petition does not provide absolute immunity to petitioners; it is subject to the same restrictions as other First Amendment rights.[1]

Background

In 1981, David Smith brought a libel suit against Robert McDonald claiming that Mcdonald had included knowing and malicious lies in a letter to the President concerning Smith's possible appointment as a United States attorney.[2] Smith claimed that these libelous claims damaged both his chances of appointment and his reputation and career. McDonald first had the case removed to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Since the alleged libel was contained in a letter (petition) to the President, he moved for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the Petition Clause of the First Amendment protected his right to express his views without limitation as long as it was part of a constitutionally protected petition.

Opinion of the Court

The issue before the Court was whether the right to petition the government granted absolute immunity from liability.

The Court decided 8–0 (Justice Powell took no part in the case) that the right to petition was subject to the same legal limitations that the rights to speech and the press are as previously decided in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). Therefore, claims made in the original letter, or in any similar petition, were and are subject to libel lawsuits to be judged on their merits. Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other members joined. Justice Brennan wrote a concurrence, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun.

References

  1. ^ Pring, George William; Canan, Penelope (1996). SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out. Temple University Press. pp. 22–23. ISBN 978-1-56639-369-0.
  2. ^ California (State). California. Court of Appeal (4th Appellate District). Division 2. Records and Briefs: D004129, Other. pp. 12–13.

External links

  • Text of McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985) is available from: CourtListener  Findlaw  Google Scholar  Justia  Oyez (oral argument audio) 
  • v
  • t
  • e
Public displays
and ceremonies
Statutory religious
exemptions
Public funding
Religion in
public schools
Private religious speech
Internal church affairs
Taxpayer standing
Blue laws
Other
Exclusion of religion
from public benefits
Ministerial exception
Statutory religious exemptions
RFRA
RLUIPA
Unprotected
speech
Incitement
and sedition
Libel and
false speech
Fighting words and
the heckler's veto
True threats
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Vagueness
Symbolic speech
versus conduct
Content-based
restrictions
Content-neutral
restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy
of others' speech
Compelled representation
Government grants
and subsidies
Government
as speaker
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and
similar laws
Licensing and
restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance
and political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Prior restraints
and censorship
Privacy
Taxation and
privileges
Defamation
Broadcast media
Copyrighted materials
Incorporation
Protection from prosecution
and state restrictions
Organizations
Future Conduct
Solicitation
Membership restriction
Primaries and elections