World News
Louisiana newspaper ordered to pay $300,000 in defamation verdict involving state supreme court justice
Press freedom organizations warn the ruling against the Advocate could chill reporting on public officials and misapply legal protections.
The short version
- A Louisiana jury awarded state Supreme Court Justice Jefferson Davis Hughes III $300,000 in a defamation lawsuit against the Advocate over a 2019 editorial.
- The dispute centered on a timeline discrepancy between the editorial and an earlier investigative news story regarding Hughes's relationship with an attorney in a 1990s custody case.
- Media rights groups argued the verdict misunderstands the actual malice standard required for public figures, while the newspaper's publisher affirmed its commitment to independent reporting.
- The outcome marks one of two recent high-profile defamation verdicts against U.S. news organizations, both of which are eligible for appeal.
Key facts
- On August 24, a Louisiana jury ruled that the Advocate defamed Louisiana Supreme Court Justice Jefferson Davis Hughes III and awarded him $300,000 in damages.[The Guardian]
- Hughes initially sought $10 million in damages, alleging that a 2019 editorial damaged his reputation and caused him emotional distress.[The Guardian]
- Because Hughes is a public figure under U.S. defamation law, his claim required establishing that the newspaper acted with actual malice.[The Guardian]
- Advocate editors testified they believed the editorial was accurate and made every effort to verify it, while defense attorneys argued actual malice was not proven.[The Guardian]
- The lawsuit involved a discrepancy between an investigative news report detailing a 1998 recusal request in a child custody case and a subsequent editorial that asserted a romantic relationship existed between Hughes and an opposing attorney in 1999.[The Guardian]
- In a separate August 21 trial in Alabama, a jury awarded $9.25 million against the New York Times in a defamation suit governed by a negligence standard after determining the plaintiff was a private individual.[The Guardian]
What remains uncertain
- It is not yet confirmed whether the Advocate or the New York Times will file formal appeals against their respective defamation verdicts.[The Guardian]