Rosenblatt v. Baer

In Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966) 383 U.S. 75, which involved the former supervisor of a county recreation area, the United States Supreme Court, at page 84, rejected state law standards as the basis for determining who is a public official. The court then indicated, at page 85, that it need not precisely define the term for the purpose of that case, and then stated at pages 85-86, and 87: "The motivating force for the decision in New York Times was twofold. We expressed 'a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that such debate may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.' 376 U.S., at 270. There is, first, a strong interest in debate on public issues, and, second, a strong interest in debate about those persons who are in a position significantly to influence the resolution of those issues. Criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion. Criticism of those responsible for government operations must be free, lest criticism of government itself be penalized. It is clear, therefore, that the 'public official' designation applies at the very least to those among the hierarchy of government employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs. "This conclusion does not ignore the important social values which underlie the law of defamation. Society has a pervasive and strong interest in preventing and redressing attacks upon reputation. But in cases like the present, there is tension between this interest and the values nurtured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The thrust of New York Times is that when interests in public discussion are particularly strong, as they were in that case, the Constitution limits the protections afforded by the law of defamation. Where a position in government has such apparent importance that the public has an independent interest in the qualifications and performance of the person who holds it, beyond the general public interest in the qualifications and performance of all government employees, both elements we identified in New York Times are present and the New York Times malice standards apply." The Court held that the termination of the plaintiff's employment did not affect his status as a public official, noting that the defendant's criticism, if it referred to the plaintiff at all, referred to his performance of his duty as a county employee. Rosenblatt, 383 U.S. at 87 n 14.