Barr v. Matteo (360 U.S. 564)

←

Barr v. Matteo (1959)

Syllabus

→

Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning legal immunity for officers of the executive branch. The Court held that when a federal government official issues a press release or other public statement about an aspect of their official duties, they are absolutely immune from libel suits—at least so long as the libel suit was not authorized by Congress, per Justice Hugo Black, whose concurring opinion provided the decisive fifth vote for immunity. The case originated when John J. Madigan and Linda Matteo, two former employees of the Office of Rent Stabilization, sued acting director William G. Barr over statements he made about them in a press release. In the Supreme Court's plurality opinion for four of five justices in the majority, Justice John Marshall Harlan II said that Barr was immune from being sued over the contents of his press release because his issuance of that press release was within the "outer perimeter" of his official duties. Harlan's opinion further asserted that federal officials "should be free to exercise their duties unembarrassed by the fear of damage suits in respect of acts done in the course of those duties."

4643688Barr v. Matteo — Syllabus1959

Court Documents

Opinion of the Court

Concurring Opinion: Black

Dissenting Opinions: Warren; Brennan; Stewart

Supreme Court of the United States

360 U.S. 564

Barr v. Matteo et al.

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

No. 350. Argued: April 29, 1959 --- Decided: June 29, 1959

When petitioner was Acting Director of the Office of Rent Stabilization and respondents were subordinate officials of the same office, petitioner caused to be issued a press release announcing his intention to suspend respondents because of the part which they had played in formulating a plan for the utilization of certain agency funds. The plan had been severely criticized on the floor of Congress, and the congressional criticism had been widely reported in the press. Respondents sued petitioner for libel, alleging malice.

Held: Petitioner's plea of absolute privilege in defense of the alleged libel must be sustained. Pp. 564-578.

103 U.S. App. D.C. 176, 256 F. 2d 890, reversed.

For judgment of the Court and opinion of MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, joined by MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE CLARK, and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER, see pp. 564-576.

For concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE BLACK, see p. 576.

For dissenting opinion of MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN, joined by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, see p. 578.

For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, see p. 586.

For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE STEWART, see p. 592.

Daniel M. Friedman argued the cause for petitioner. On the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Doub, Samuel D. Slade and Bernard Cedarbaum.

Byron N. Scott argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Richard A. Mehler.

Barr v. Matteo (360 U.S. 564)

Navigation menu

Search