In 1960, the New York Times published a full-page advertisement titled "Heed Their Rising Voices," which sought to raise funds for the civil rights movement and criticized the treatment of civil rights protesters in the South. The advertisement described police actions against student protesters and contained some factual inaccuracies about events in Montgomery, Alabama.

L.B. Sullivan, an elected commissioner in Montgomery responsible for supervising the police department, sued the New York Times and four individual civil rights leaders for libel. Although Sullivan was not named in the advertisement, he claimed that the criticism of police conduct reflected on him personally and damaged his reputation.

An Alabama jury awarded Sullivan $500,000 in damages, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The case arose during the height of the civil rights movement, and many viewed the lawsuit as an attempt to intimidate the press and civil rights activists through the threat of large damage awards.

Public officials cannot recover damages for defamatory statements relating to their official conduct unless they prove that the statement was made with "actual malice" - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

The First Amendment requires a federal rule that prohibits public officials from recovering damages for defamatory falsehoods relating to their official conduct unless they meet the actual malice standard, regardless of state libel laws.

Democratic Self-Governance: The Court emphasized that the First Amendment reflects a "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." Criticism of government officials is essential to democratic self-governance.

Chilling Effect: The Court recognized that the threat of large damage awards could create a chilling effect on press coverage of public officials and civil rights activities. Without constitutional protection, the press might engage in self-censorship to avoid potential liability.

Actual Malice Standard: The Court established that public officials must prove actual malice - knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth - to recover damages. This standard provides breathing space for freedom of expression while still protecting against knowing falsehoods.

Federal Constitutional Rule: The Court held that the First Amendment requires a federal rule protecting criticism of public officials, superseding state libel laws that might be more restrictive of speech.

The Court noted that erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate and must be protected if freedoms of expression are to have the breathing space they need to survive.

This case fundamentally transformed First Amendment jurisprudence and defamation law, providing crucial protection for press freedom and political criticism. The actual malice standard became the foundation for modern media law and continues to protect robust debate about public officials.

The decision was particularly important for the civil rights movement, protecting media coverage of civil rights activities and preventing Southern officials from using libel laws to silence criticism of segregation and discrimination.

The case established the principle that the First Amendment requires special protection for speech about public officials and matters of public concern, recognizing that such speech is essential to democratic governance and must be given breathing space to flourish.