Kenneth T. Lyons v. W. E. Howard, Jr.

Plaintiffs, al., et T. Kenneth LYONS Appellants, Defendant, Jr., HOWARD,

W. E. Appellee.

No. 5263. Court Circuit. First 6, 1957. Nov.

Heard 13, 1958. Jan.

Decided alleged Lyons plaintiff Boston, Mass., This letter that Sigel, Alfred by by name, plaintiff de- Boston, and the other Irving Mass., was Kaplan, whom scription, predominant influ- “exercise a brief, appellants. for on the activities; organizatiоnal ence” in the Atty., Dept, Sweeney, of Jus- A. Paul organization giving has been that the C., Washington, with whom tice, D. or wide distribution to newsletter Gen., Atty. Doub, George Asst. Cochran bulletin; bulletin become that this has Dept, Jus- Atty., Cedarbaum, Bernard unfairly the and more more critical Julian, Anthony C., Washingtоn, tice, D. shipyard purpose administration, for the Caffrey, Asst. Atty., A. Andrew and S.U. only thwarting the the aims Mass., Boston, on the Atty., were S.U. shipyard accom- administration in the brief, appellee. for plishment mission, fur- but also to of its MAGRUDER, Judge, and Chief Before personal and self-interests ther aims HARTIGAN, and Circuit WOODBURY or- in control of the labor the individuals Judges. exple- ganization; “editorial that these general adversely have affected the tives” Judge. MAGRUDER, Chief employees shipyard, morale of who the by appeal us an two have before We against such are entitled to be Massachusetts, from plaintiffs, citizens group by any subversion” labor “overt defendant, summary judgment for motives are “whose methods and whose complaint Maryland, under a citizen of unethical, uninhibited, and lack in- the for libel. reasonably tegrity purpose could Admiral W. E. is Rear The defendant expected.” Howard, Jr., Boston of the Commander charges complaint that the intent The Shipyard. defend- Naval ant, It meaning forego- and of the defendant’s shipyard, had the as commander of charge letter was tо that each increasingly by irritated the become plaintiffs the was false to his trust organization called of a labor conduct organization, an officer of said ‍​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‍Shipyard Post No. 1. Boston Naval parent engaging in directed subversive activities organization local national of this obstructing legitimate end of Employees Federal Veterans As- is the sociation, Inc., organization purposes of labor plaintiff Kenneth of which management; shipyard of the Lyons, Ship- T. who works at Boston contained defendant’s yard, The other is National Commander. letter were as a whole written malicious- McAteer, alleged plaintiff, Joseph S. also ly, wickedly, recklessly, willfully and employee shipyard, to be an falsely. Commander of Boston Naval summary judgment for defendant No. Post 1. ruling upоn law based charge Plaintiffs are entitled undoubtedly defamatory statements at- damages for recover mat- defendant, commanding tributed to the in a letter ter contained written de- Shipyard, officer 8, 1955, September fendant on addressed discharge published him in were Ships, to the Chief of the Bureau of De- duties, in relation his official to matters Navy, Washington, C., partment of D. determination; himto committed also to the of Industrial Rela- and tions, Chief that in thereto the defendant was Relations, Officeof Industrial De- absolutely comрletely and immune from Navy. partment In this letter of the liability, regardless of motive. explain defendant undertook to to his possible publications why superiors There are three he had determined to with- charged (1) complaint: recognition, September in the аs of official draw memorandum to or from “Post No. Federal Em- letter notifying officers, Association, Inc., superior them ployees of the Veterans as an withdrawing organized employee group him in action taken recognition employee group Shiрyard”. at the (2) Shipyard; may perhaps Whether the courts Congress gone developing member of to each far down the line in too immunity may Massachusetts doctrine of absolute (3) report; question; any be a fair memorandum we shall rate develop communication defendant to not be astute to further Press, categories Press, immunity. United Associated of absolute Service, of and to all International News We shall now word about daily city Boston, papers of in the of namely, publication (3) forth, set above сopies report. of the aforesaid official copies distribution of official re- above, publication (1) port to representatives As to various of the appears affidavit press. from the uncontradicted We understand that counsel Snаckenberg, appellants Com ap- Rear Admiral point abandoned on District, peal. mandant the First Naval The record an unchal- contains military superior, lenged immediate sup- affidavit the defendant in among offi port summary Rear Admiral Howard’s judg- that of his mоtion for making reports stating to cial duties was “the ment that he “did not release or Navy, Ships, the Bureau of any cause to be released or document * * * significant any any relative to action taken repre- to respect personnel, him with to the сivilian press.” sentative of the It from military, employed Snackenberg or stationed at the the affidavit of Admiral that Shipyard.” deference In the officeof the Commandant of the First obliged cases, to the decided hold, we feel to practice Naval District makes it a of re- report leasing con pertinent so far this official is information to the cerned, press; during that the is his official absence immunity acting an lia absolute civil “the then Commandant, First bility. States, District, Glick, United to of Parra Captain Use Naval John A. Brunswick, 1934, App.D.C. Navy, vicino v. 63 U. S. authorized re- the routine 65, 383; lease, through 69 F.2d De Arnaud Ains v. the Public Information worth, 1904, L.R.A., App.D.C. 167, 24 5 Headquarters, Officer of First Naval N.S., 163; Valentine, 1912, District,” representatives Farr v. 38 press to of the App.D.C.413; Taylor Glotfelty, Cir., copies v. 6 of the official memorandum 1952, 51; McGrath, 201 F.2d Miles v. from the Commander of Naval the Boston 603; D.C.D.Md.1933, F.Supp. 4 Har to the Chief of the Bureau of D.C.W.D.Ky.1938, McMurtry, Ships wood Washington, v. Thus, in D. C. when Gregoire F.Supp. 22 also v. through 572. See the defendant forwarded chan- Biddle, Cir., 1949, 579, report, might 2 177 F.2d certi nels his official he well have orari copiеs denied 339 U.S. 70 S.Ct. report foreseen that of such would 1363; Papagianakis surely 94 L.Ed. press by higher be released to the Samos, Cir., 1950, authority. 186 F.2d 257. But if Admiral Howard was protected by in policy Of course the behind the making report, such official it seems to us granting of such absolute is obviоus that he would not lose im- protect not to wicked defendants from the munity by high- reason of the fact that a publication normal liabilities for the authority, er over whom he had no con- maliciously trol, undoubtedly would release to the Rather, policy and in bad fаith. is press copy of the official communica- to further what greater is deemed to be the tion. assuring public interest of to public complete officials conscientious That leaves for consideration the duties, publication freedom in exеrcise of their second mentioned above. In inhibiting possible fear of without the defendant’s affidavit con they in would ‍​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‍ceded lawsuits satisfy course of his good jury their own faith. duties “and Navy in conformance with publication keeping re- policy members a series оf unofficial Department ports. tendency in which matters case informed illustrates interest,” narrowly sent he courts confine have an official immunity. po- to doctrine of absolute memorandum his official sition Massachu- of the First of the Commandant each оf the stronger delegation. certainly congressional is true It District no setts than judge did have who was these members being kept Murray advised defendant in v. Brancato. an official interest rela- important developments in labor mayWe add that we have some Shipyard. It tions at question present whether the case is certainly understandable is therefore governed by Massachusetts, be the iaw of that the Commander not officious as courts, declared in the state or wheth might Shipyard have con- legal er this is a casе where relations are his proper exercise of ceived it to be a governed by law,” a “federal common the it that to see to official functions body a developedby of decisional law the Congress receive should of members by fedеral courts untrammeled state especially report, as copies of such official court decisions. Cf. O’Brien v. Western report to an answer was in a sense this charges Telegraph Co., Union Cir., 1940, 1 113 F. at the of maladministration challenge 2d 539. It would be difficult to Shiрyard in news- the contained constitutionality the of an Con act letters or bulletins the gress prescribing 1, plaintiffs the Post No. which liability, from privi or a conditional supply pains to to themselves had taken lege, reports in the case of official made to frоm time the members of superiors. a naval officer to his In Therefore, making this com- in time. prescription by the absence of a the Con members of munication to the gress, is not a it function of the federal performance of his in course of the liability courts to formulate the rules of functions, think that executive we applicable to officialactions civilian or ought a to be military States, officers of the United re privilege far qualified or conditional so gardless might what state courts liability as concerns for def- matters of say? Cf. United States v. Standard Oil may amation which contained there- be Company California, 1947, 332 U.S. Am.L.Inst., Restatement of in. See 301, 1604, 67 S.Ct. 91 L.Ed. 2067. We seq. be an un- Torts 599 et It would § pose question undertaking this without thing to situa- wholesome to extend this it, to decide for we think it would make protection an absolute im- tion munity proper disposition no in difference apply held to to such as has been present complaint case. The here reports superior to a officer. diversity citizenship. founded on judicial protectiоn However, parties officers from counsel for the seem to presented general mat- of civil lawsuits has been a the fear case one of special law, confining concern to courts. See common ter Bradley not themselves to Fishеr, ‍​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‍1871, 335, any particular jurisdiction. 20 v. 13 Wall. the law of controlling, There is no doubt that a L.Ed. 646. judge Even if law Massachusetts is absolutely suppose immune is from civil we have no reason to it liability on account of mat- would extend the doctrine of absolute im judicial opinion munity publication him in a included to cover defendant’s ters officially Congress. Court released. Yet the to the members of the ognized by As rec York, Murray Supreme of New Judicial of Brancato, 1943, Court in 52, 1894, Flood, 509, 290 N.Y. 48 N.E.2d Howland v. 160 Mass. compara held such A.L.R. ab- 36 N.E. 482: “There are protect judge tively parties pro did not a few cases in which are solute furnishing copy judicial opin- absolutely liability of his from for tected state Publishing Company defamatory.” West for ments which be to the turn out to ion vacating naturally flowing judgment fear of law- A will be entеred might might suit judgment District Court in which not convincing remanding succeed in of fact case to that Court the trier good of their proceedings faith. I occasion not inconsistent see no further anticipate appeal. to opinion; I costs on the rule hardship advocate no persons would work undue on Judge (dissent- WOODBURY, congressional Circuit defamed. audience is part). ought small and we that no assume body party member of authority- would be question is close and calumny. to the dissemination As bearing directly upon concerned, far are as sanctions it seems lacking, circumstances but under the military discipline, to me fear of equate particular I would case instigation perhaps at the of a member to the Congress outraged the libel congres- Massachusetts cоnstituent, provides adequate an deter- delegation communica- sional to his I affirm rent. would the District Court. superior I certain- tion to his officers. ly go that one would far so enjoys always position in the defendant’s liability from civil communi- of Con- cations addressed to say gress. But there is I would here, immunity when, absolute Congress members of communication to gratuitous is made is not or officiousbut de- in accordance with established LUTHER, Ed Administrator of Es keep- practice partmental policy Hafner, deceased, and Ed tаte Ruth informed of members of Luther, as Administrator Estate have an matters ‍​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‍deceased, Appellants, Hafner, of L. G. interest, certainly they of- have an affecting ficial in matters labor interest Maple, and Donna Forrest MAPLE E. military their installations in relations . Appellees districts. No. 15774. I do it would be unwhole- not think Court of protection of an ab- some to extend the Eighth Circuit. before solute situation Jan. 1958. contrary, me On the it seems to us. might expected results well be

beneficial Rehearing Denied Feb. 1958. giving protection from a rule absolute only military respect to officers superiors, to their their communications also with those but sent to members Con-

communications subject gress, thereof matter ‍​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‍when legislative pertinent to their duties and

functions. can as- I would receiving free of unwa- flow

sured kind down information of the

tered legislative wisely to exercise its needs military supervision establish- over military only officers if like the ment free the restraints

defendant are

Case Details

Case Name: Kenneth T. Lyons v. W. E. Howard, Jr.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Date Published: Jan 13, 1958

Citation: 250 F.2d 912

Docket Number: 5263_1

Court Abbreviation: 1st Cir.