Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 20, 1989 Decided June 22, 1989
Full case name	Harte-Hanks Communications, Incorporated v. Daniel Connaughton
Citations	491 U.S. 657 (more) 109 S. Ct. 2678; 105 L. Ed. 2d 562; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 3133
Case history
Prior	Motion to dismiss denied, (S.D. Ohio.); judgment for plaintiff, S.D. Ohio.; judgment set aside, judgment for defendant (S.D. Ohio 1984); affirmed, 842 F.2d 825 (6th Cir. 1988); rehearing denied, 6th Circuit; cert. granted, 488 U.S. 907 (1988).
Holding
Ignoring obvious sources and reporting with a reckless disregard for the truth are sufficient evidence for actual malice in libel law.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Case opinions
Majority	Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, O'Connor, Kennedy
Concurrence	White, joined by Rehnquist
Concurrence	Blackmun
Concurrence	Kennedy
Concurrence	Scalia (in the judgment)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Harte-Hanks Communications Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States supplied an additional journalistic behavior that constitutes actual malice as first discussed in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).^[1] In the case, the Court held that departure from responsible reporting and unreasonable reporting conduct alone were not sufficient to award a public figure damages in a libel case. However, the Court also ruled that if reporters wrote with reckless disregard for the truth, which included ignoring obvious sources for their report, plaintiffs could be awarded compensatory damages on the grounds of actual malice.^[2]