Court Opinion

ID: 9478275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:44:29.354677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:19.895966
License: Public Domain

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Here we have a sequel to our DeRoburt v. Gannett Co., Inc., 733 F.2d 701 (1984).
I wish to make some comment on the accused newspaper stories that made this case. The reporter was the first small Pacific Islands native to be hired by a paper or papers with a large circulation. He had been apparently indoctrinated on the glories of our First Amendment, and the reporter’s duty to even go to jail to protect his sources.
To me, it is the headlines, surely not written by the reporter Uludong, that made the litigation we have here.
It bears down on the Marshall Islands on the legality of the “loan” according to the Marshall Islands’ laws. It seems to me the laws of Nauru were much more important. For example I suppose that each dollar sent by our government to the Contras offends the laws of Nicaragua under the Sandinistas.
My point is that while we have upheld a right in DeRoburt in our first opinion, exempting DeRoburt from the law of the “Act of State” doctrine, we have reached the outer limit in exempting rulers from the “Act of State”, and the Supreme Court has denied certiorari, Gannett Co., Inc., et al., v. DeRoburt, 469 U.S. 1159, 105 S.Ct. 909, which makes “Round One” the law of the case, I think.
By saying the above, I do not mean to say our first opinion was an aberration. I *717think it will fit a few other cases as they arise, but only a few.
This may be getting ahead too early, but considering the whole record, the jury did find on interrogatories that the news story was false, but found no malice. We can find no fault with the conclusions of the jury, and the parties do not argue here against the findings.
If I had a second vote on the Court as constituted, I would hold that the First Amendment and New York Times v. Sullivan, 469 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 7 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) do not preclude a two dollar judgment in favor of the plaintiff.