Nations Lack Standing to File Libel Suits in U.S. Courts, Yale Law Professor Argues

New York, NY – In a significant legal commentary published by The Free Press, Yale Law Professor Jed Rubenfeld asserts that, under American law, sovereign nations are barred from initiating libel suits, even in cases where "actual malice" might be present. This argument comes amid recent discussions regarding the State of Israel's potential legal action against The New York Times.

Professor Rubenfeld's analysis, featured in an article titled "Does the State of Israel Have a Case Against The New York Times?", directly addresses the complex interplay of international relations and U.S. defamation law. As stated in a tweet from The Free Press, "> The paper might be guilty of actual malice. But nations cannot bring libel suits, writes Jed Rubenfeld for The Free Press." This highlights a core tenet of American jurisprudence that sets it apart from many other countries.

The concept of "actual malice" in U.S. defamation law, established by the Supreme Court in the landmark 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, requires public officials or public figures to prove that a defamatory statement was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." This high standard is designed to protect robust public discourse and press freedom. Public figures, including politicians and celebrities, face this elevated burden of proof due to their access to public platforms for rebuttal and their voluntary engagement in matters of public concern.

Rubenfeld's primary contention is that, regardless of whether a publication meets the "actual malice" standard, foreign states lack the legal standing to pursue libel claims in American courts. This principle prevents foreign governments from using U.S. legal mechanisms to suppress criticism or manage their international image, reinforcing the First Amendment's broad protections for speech concerning public affairs. The Free Press, founded by Bari Weiss, is known for publishing commentary that often challenges mainstream narratives and advocates for free expression.

The discussion initiated by Rubenfeld's article gains particular relevance in the context of recent reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened to sue The New York Times over an article concerning Gaza. While some legal scholars might argue for the possibility of such a suit based on egregious falsehoods, Rubenfeld's position underscores a fundamental barrier in American law that prioritizes free speech over the reputational interests of foreign governments. This legal stance ensures that U.S. media outlets can report on international affairs without fear of being subjected to foreign governments' libel laws.