Court Opinion

ID: 9445640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:34:55.020753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:21.415512
License: Public Domain

DANAHER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Appellant was the duly appointed Acting Director of the Office of Rent Stabilization at the time of the alleged libel. “All powers, duties and functions conferred on the President by Title II of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, exclusive of section 208(a), as amended, [50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1891 et seq., 1898(a)], and delegated to the Economic Stabilization Administrator by Executive Order No. 10276, [50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1898 note], shall be exercised and performed by the Director of Rent Stabilization pursuant to Executive Order No. 10276 and except as otherwise provided by this order.”1
The declaration of policy of such an executive, as contained in the challenged press release, seems to me to be absolutely privileged. The appellant, exercising by redelegation the President’s own powers, was entitled to immunity.2
3 The official act was within the scope of those powers. The occasion was such as justified his action. The subject of the release dealt specifically with general matters committed by law to his control or supervision.
Appellee Madigan had been Deputy Housing Expediter in charge of personnel budget and fiscal matters within the agency. Appellee Matteo had been responsible for all technical aspects of the personnel program including recruiting and classification, and had been adviser to the deputy for administration on procedures or policy matters. Mr. Madigan devised a plan, in which both appellees joined, whereby they “terminated themselves one day as permanent employees; received their lump sum accumulated annual leave; were rehired the next day; continued as temporary employees, with the intent to convert back to permanent employees at a later date.” Appellant’s intra-agency opposition to the plan was known.
Members of Congress publicly attacked the plan. Earlier criticism had been crystallized in the Thomas Amendment.3 Appellant told appellees on February 5, 1953 “that the plan had become public, the agency was being bombarded with questions from newspapers and other forms of public media, that the agency was being subjected to severe criticism and that in order to protect the good name of the agency and myself I had to take disciplinary action against an act which I deemed improper.”
Appellee Madigan two days earlier had prepared a letter to Senator Williams defending the plan. He did not attempt to see appellant about it, but forwarded the letter purporting to bear appellant’s signature despite appellant’s known opposition to the plan. Both appellees “took advantage” of the plan to use up the ear-marked funds.
Appellant testified that he decided to take disciplinary action “because I felt *771there was no defense for the plan and I had to protect the integrity of the agency and because of my personal position in the matter and the letter had been sent to Senator Williams without my knowledge.” 4
The defense of this case was conducted by the Department of Justice. In the District Court appellant’s motion for directed verdict was based in part on the ground that “the press release was qualifiedly privileged.” The suit in last analysis, I take it, may be viewed as one against the Government which undoubtedly through Congress will be asked to respond to the judgment. I doubt that Government attorneys possess the power to waive a defense which, if it had been asserted, might have prevailed here. Compare our opinion in Newbury v. Love, 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. -, 242 F.2d 372, where we found absolute privilege, despite Colpoys v. Gates.5
I see no obstacle in the Colpoys case to the result which I believe is required here. The limited functions of a marshal in publishing a statement in connection with the resignation of two deputies are not to be confounded with a situation such as the instant case presents. Even in Colpoys we recognized that officers with policy-determining functions are in a different category, and privilege is shown to have been accorded to acts in the general line of duty.
To recapitulate: here the Acting Director’s status and authority stemmed from the President himself. His Executive Order made this agency head, in his own division, a policymaker second only to the Economic Stabilization Director. Involved, as a matter of top interest, was a policy position with reference to a plan admittedly devised to “use up” $2,-600,000 of public funds which had been earmarked for terminal leave. If the appellant thought the Madigan plan had been a perversion of an appropriation to ends beyond the intention of Congress in providing the funds, it was his duty to speak out. He was not alone in his appraisal of the untoward result. His press release did no more than seek to allay the serious challenge to the integrity of the agency and to attempt to restore a public confidence which the use of the plan had impaired. The subject matter was personal to him because his name had without authorization been affixed to an official letter which misrepresented his position. The whole congeries of occurrences, including the position the Acting Director intended to take with reference to the problem, became of vital concern to the public. Under such circumstances, the press release was entitled to the status of privilege.
We need not, indeed I do not seek to, relax the rule which regards a cabinet officer as “absolutely privileged to publish defamation, not only in doing his duty but also in discussing it; his defamation, to be protected, need only have ‘more or less connection with the general matters committed by law to his control or supervision.’ ”6 I think we should hold only that this officer, on the facts here disclosed, acting in the name of the President and exercising, by redelegation, powers conferred upon him by statute, and possessed of policy-making functions, is immune on account of a policy statement issued within the scope of his authority as to a matter committed by law to his control.
In this view, I think the judgment should be reversed.

. Sec. 4 of GO 9—Organization for Rent Stabilization, 16 Fed.Reg. 7630.

. DeArnaud v. Ainsworth, 1904, 24 App.D.C. 167, 178, 5 L.R.A.,N.S., 163; Glass v. Ickes, 1940, 73 App.D.C. 3, 117 F.2d 273, 132 A.L.R. 1328, certiorari denied, 1941, 311 U.S. 718, 61 S.Ct. 441, 85 L.Ed. 468; Mellon v. Brewer, 1927, 57 App.D.C. 126, 18 F.2d 168, 53 A.L.R. 1519, certiorari denied, 1927, 275 U.S. 530, 48 S.Ct. 28, 72 L.Ed. 409; cf. Gregoire v. Biddle, 2 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 579, certiorari denied, 1950, 339 U.S. 949, 70 S.Ct. 803, 94 L.Ed. 1363.

. § 1212, General Appropriations Act, 1951, 64 Stat. 768, provided in part: “No part of the funds of, or available for expenditure by any corporation or agency included in this Act * * * shall be available to pay for annual leave accumulated by any civilian officer or employee during the calendar year 1950 and unused at the close of business on June 30, 1951 « * *_>>

. Cf. Dickins v. International Brotherhood, Etc., 1948, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 51, 171 F.2d 21.

. 1941, 73 App.D.C. 193, 118 F.2d 16.

. Colpoys v. Gates, supra, note 5, 73 App.D.C. at page 194, 118 F.2d at page 17, citing Spalding v. Vilas, 1896, 161 U.S. 483, 498, 16 S.Ct. 631, 40 L.Ed. 780.