Brimelow v. N.Y. Times Co.
21-66-cv
| 2d Cir. | Oct 21, 2021Background
- Plaintiff-appellant Peter Brimelow sued The New York Times Company for defamation, alleging five articles (Jan 2019–May 2020) labeled him and his site VDARE as "white nationalist," "open white nationalist," and "anti‑Semitic."
- The Southern District of New York granted the Times’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a defamation claim under New York law.
- Brimelow pleaded that he is a journalist and VDARE’s founder/editor; the complaint thus treated him as a public figure.
- The complaint chiefly relied on Brimelow’s denials (including a February 2018 Slate interview and letters to the Times) and alleged departures from journalistic standards to infer actual malice.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding the complaint failed to plausibly allege actual malice required for a public‑figure defamation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brimelow is a public figure | Brimelow describes his career and VDARE role as prominent | Times contended he is a public figure given his prominence | Held: Brimelow is a public figure |
| Whether complaint plausibly alleges actual malice | Denials, letters, and alleged departures from standards show Times knew or recklessly disregarded falsity | Times argued allegations amount to mere denials or negligence, not actual malice | Held: Allegations insufficient; no plausible inference of actual malice |
| Whether denials alone can establish actual malice | Denials (e.g., 2018 interview) show the Times had contrary evidence and ignored it | Times: denials without corroboration do not show the publisher entertained serious doubts | Held: Denials alone do not support actual malice |
| Whether alleged ill will and journalistic lapses satisfy Harte‑Hanks standard | Harte‑Hanks allows motive and departures from standards as circumstantial evidence of malice | Times: motive and lapses are insufficient absent other strong evidence of purposeful avoidance of truth | Held: Harte‑Hanks does not relieve plaintiff of showing other supporting facts; here allegations fall short |
Key Cases Cited
- Biro v. Condé Nast, 807 F.3d 541 (2d Cir. 2015) (pleading standard and actual‑malice plausibility review)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (fact‑pleading plausibility standard)
- Palin v. N.Y. Times Co., 940 F.3d 804 (2d Cir. 2019) (defamation elements and actual malice requirement for public figures)
- N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (actual malice standard for public officials/figures)
- Harte‑Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989) (motive and departure from standards as circumstantial evidence of actual malice, but insufficient alone)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (public vs. private figure distinction)
- Contemp. Mission, Inc. v. N.Y. Times Co., 842 F.2d 612 (2d Cir. 1988) (actual malice requires strong proof; protects press freedom)
- Edwards v. Nat’l Audubon Soc’y, Inc., 556 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1977) (denials, without more, generally insufficient to show actual malice)
- Church of Scientology Int’l v. Behar, 238 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2001) (reckless disregard measured by publisher’s subjective doubts)