McDonald v. Smith (1984)
- Docket
- 84-476
- Decided
- 1984-01-01
Summary
Question: Does the Petition Clause of the First Amendment grant absolute immunity to a defendant charged with sending libelous letters to the President of the United States? Conclusion: No. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger delivered the opinion of the 8-0 majority. The Supreme Court held that, while the Petition Clause was an important foundation for the ideas of self-government, there is no evidence that the Framers intended it to allow the unchecked expression of false information. Previous cases have also shown that the right to petition is not without limits; baseless litigation is not protected under the Petition Clause. The Court also held that damages may not be recovered without proof that the defendant acted with actual malice. In his concurring opinion, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote that the Framers intended the Petition Clause to be a part of the overlapping First Amendment protections of free expression. Since the other parts of the First Amendment do not grant absolute immunity, he argued that there was no reason to assume that the Petition Clause should. Justice Thurgood Marshall and Justice Harry A. Blackmun joined in the concurrence. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. took not part in the discussion or decision of this case.