Document: 360 U.S. 593 79 S.Ct. 1331 3 L.Ed.2d 1454 W. E. HOWARD, Jr., Petitioner,v.Kenneth T. LYONS and Joseph S. McAteer. No. 57. Reargued April 20, 21, 1959. Decided June 29, Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, See 80 40. Mr. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Clause L. Dawson, respondents. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This is a companion case to Barr v. Matteo, 564, 1335. Petitioner Howard in 1955 was Captain United States Navy Commander Boston Naval Shipyard. Respondent Lyons National Federal Employees Veterans Association, Inc., respondent McAteer local officer that Association. Both respondents were at all material times civilian employees Shipyard, several years before September 8, 1955, Association recognized by shipyard as an employees' representative group. On date petitioner withdrew official recognition Association—an action which not here challenged. 2 Respondents brought suit Massachusetts District Court, invoking diversity jurisdiction, making following allegations: on circulated statement defaming them; purported be memorandum Chief Bureau Ships Industrial Relations, but released 'outside his duties' various newspapers wire services members delegation Congress States; circulating acted 'maliciously, wilfully, wickedly, recklessly falsely with malice aforesight (sic)'; intended did injure reputation A copy complained filed complaint. It form report directed Relations Department Navy, reciting petitioner's dissatisfaction activities announcing intention withdraw previously accorded it.1 4 answered, stating fact communication, sending copies it congressional he acting within scope duties pursuant policy; denying outside had communication newspapers. He thereupon moved summary judgment, attaching motion own affidavit essentially repeating statements from answer above summarized, Commandant First District. That stated commanding officer; reports relative any significant personnel one duties; also among those furnishing such delegation; dissemination been made through channels approved 5 The Court granted judgment petitioner, holding uncontradicted affidavits conclusively showed published 'in discharge relation matters committed him determination,' therefore absolutely privileged. respondents' appeal, Appeals held superior officers protected absolute privilege, noted reliance abandoned appeal face sworn responsible publication. As publication delegation, however, court, judge dissenting, refused allow more than qualified although recognizing 'it true these have interest being kept advised important developments labor relations Shipyard,' 'the Shipyard might conceived proper exercise functions see should receive * *.' Accordingly, reversed remanded trial. Cir., 250 F.2d 912, 915. 6 We certiorari consider contention erred failing recognize plea privilege respect Congress. 357 903, 78 1148, 1154. cross-petition certiorari. 7 At outset, we take note question Appeals, its view case, find necessary resolve—whether extent civil liability allegedly defamatory under state law may claimed Government, course their duties, federal courts are bound follow law. think very dictates negative answer. authority act derives sources, rule recognizes appropriate circumstances duty designed promote effective functioning Government. No subject could peculiarly concern, would deny considerations give leave determination vagaries laws States. Cf. ClearfieldTru st Co. States, 318 363, 63 573, 87 L.Ed. 838. hold validity claim must judged standards, formulated absence legislative 8 Our decision 1335, governs this case. has observed, both issue part duties. Although averment defendant cannot foreclose examination question, officer, Memorandum Instructions issued Secretary our Court,2 plainly show correct finding circulation (petitioner's) determination.' 9 Reversed. 10 BLACK concurs reasons concurring 11 WARREN whom DOUGLAS joins, dissenting. 12 I agree Howard's Congressional Delegation privileged.1 In argument Government consistently distinguished characterizing man who strict orders no discretion. 13 Until reargument only indications mandatory sort bald assertions effect superior, Admiral Schnackenberg, Not naval regulation cited other offered. that, same affidavit, when explaining why transmitted able cite chapter verse Public Information Manual action. 14 For first time produced letter referred Court's opinion. paragraph relied nothing general policy applicable 'Navy agencies.'2 way toward problems—and quoted portion few lines five-page sent distribution list apparently never inserted Register or Manual. Obviously, because unaware existence—or applicability. 15 short explanation thought since plaintiffs attacked administrationof newsletters charges Congress, send side story. right do doing so greater critic. most received complaints Congress,3 yet Captain's given privilege. 16 my dissent Matteo indicates, burden proof sustain page read record placing make Congress.4 17 affirm. 18 dissenting Brennan, 1347. purpose served setting out entire, lengthy report. adequately summarized Appeals' follows: 'This alleged plaintiff name, description, 'exercise predominant influence' organizational activities; organization giving wide newsletter bulletin; bulletin become unfairly critical administration, thwarting aims administration accomplishment mission, further personal self-interests individuals control organization; 'editorial expletives' adversely affected morale shipyard, entitled against 'overt subversion' group 'whose methods whose motives unethial, uninhibited, lack integrity reasonably expected." 913. SECNAV Instruction 5730.5, February 3, 12: 'Congressional Notification Actions Interest. Members anxious keep touch what going respective states districts. agencies shall them advised, if possible advance, new actions curtailment affect them.' controls matter. agencies' defined 2b term includes Civilian Executive Assistants Secretary, Professional Heads Offices Boards Department.' Surely every knew something interested, required contact directly. See, e.g., Sweeney Higgins, 117 Me. 415, 104 A. 791; Tyree Harrison, 100 Va. 540, 42 S.E. 295; Hancock Mitchell, 83 W.Va. 156, 98 65. record, believe derelict Congress—and suggested warranted disciplinary measures.

Category: 7