Recent Decision Shows the Heavy Burden of Actual Malice in Defamation Suits

Ever since the landmark case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), to succeed on a defamation claim, plaintiffs who are also public figures have a constitutional requirement to show that the defendant acted with “actual malice”—i.e., knowledge that the allegedly defamatory statement was false or reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.  This requirement is buttressed by anti-SLAPP statutes enacted in many states.  See, e.g.,  N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 76-a(2).  This requirement has become harder and harder for defamation plaintiffs to satisfy, as exemplified by a recent case, Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Newsweek Magazine LLC, --- F. Supp. 3d ---- (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

In that case, Newsweek published an article about the Satanic Temple, including a statement that there was “more than anecdotal evidence” of sexual abuse at the Temple, id. at *1.  Despite Newsweek's editorial guidelines requiring credible sources and an opportunity for organizations accused of wrongdoing to comment, the statement came from a “semi-anonymous” source that could not be independently verified, id. at *2, and the Temple was not asked for comment, id.  In addition, the Court determined that an email from the author of the article could support a finding that she was biased against the Temple at the time of writing the article, id. at *14.  

Although the Court found that Newsweek had “fail[ed]” to show that the Satanic Temple was a public figure, id. at *9 n. 5, it analyzed whether the statement was nevertheless made with “actual malice” pursuant to New York's anti-SLAPP statute.  The Court determined that Newsweek's publication of the allegedly defamatory statement on its website and the “growing awareness of and activism surrounding the topic[] of sexual misconduct” placed the statement within the statute's purview.  Id. at *9.

The Court ultimately granted Newsweek summary judgment due to the Satanic Temple's failure to present enough evidence to allow a reasonable jury to determine that Newsweek acted with actual malice.  It reached this conclusion even though there was evidence of Newsweek's “fail[ure] to follow its own internal Editorial Guidelines” and “evidence of bias," reasoning that neither was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Newsweek's publication was made with actual malice.  Id. at *10, 14.  

The Satantic Temple decision reinforces the heavy burden on defamation plaintiffs whenever the actual malice requirement applies to their claims.