Walter Block v. New York Times Company
815 F.3d 218
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2014 the New York Times published an article quoting Walter Block on slavery and the Civil Rights Act; Block does not dispute making the quoted statements but contends they were taken out of context and thus defamatory and false light.
- Block sued the New York Times, Tanenhaus, and Rutenberg in diversity court for defamation and false light after the Times refused to publish a retraction.
- Defendants moved to strike the complaint under Louisiana’s anti‑SLAPP statute, La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 971 (Article 971).
- The district court granted the Article 971 motion, finding Block could not show a probability of success on his claims, dismissed the complaint, and awarded attorneys’ fees.
- On appeal Block argued Article 971 should not apply in federal court (or was applied incorrectly) and that he had shown a probability of success.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo, concluded Article 971’s non‑movant burden is functionally equivalent to Rule 56 (per Lozovyy v. Kurtz), vacated, and remanded for the district court to evaluate whether Block has a genuine dispute of material fact on each claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 971 applies in federal diversity cases if it imposes a stricter standard than Rule 56 | Block: Article 971 conflicts with Rule 56 and shouldn’t apply in federal court if it requires a heavier burden | Defendants: Article 971 applies; it does not impose a heavier burden than Rule 56 | Court: Assumed Article 971 applies and, per Lozovyy, its burden is equivalent to Rule 56, so no conflict |
| Proper burden to defeat an Article 971 motion to strike | Block: must show more than Rule 56’s standard (probability of success) | Defendants: non‑movant need only create a genuine dispute of material fact (Rule 56 standard) | Court: Non‑movant’s burden under Article 971 is functionally the same as Rule 56 (genuine dispute of material fact) |
| Whether the district court applied the correct standard in evaluating the Article 971 motion | Block: district court should not have applied Article 971 or applied it differently | Defendants: district court’s dismissal was proper | Court: District court applied an incorrect (probability) standard and arguably resolved fact disputes; remedy is vacatur and remand |
| Remedy after incorrect application of Article 971 | Block: judgment should be reversed and case reinstated | Defendants: dismissal should stand | Court: VACATE and REMAND for district court to consider whether Block has genuine disputes of material fact on each element of his claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Sampson v. ASC Indus., 780 F.3d 679 (5th Cir.) (de novo review of legal questions)
- Henry v. Lake Charles Am. Press, LLC, 566 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. 2009) (applied Article 971 in a diversity case)
- FDIC v. Abraham, 137 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 1998) (rule of orderliness—panel precedent binding)
- Zastrow v. Hous. Auto Imports Greenway Ltd., 789 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2015) (issue‑waiver principles)