Oldham criticizes the constitutional basis of actual malice
Andrew OldhamFifth Circuit judge writing a separate concurrence
Oldham argues that actual malice lacks a constitutional basis and criticizes its application to public figures. He concurs in the result because his court is bound by Sullivan.
“why should the First Amendment protect some Americans less than it protects others?”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Should the Supreme Court keep New York Times v. Sullivan's rule and its public-figure extensions?
New York Times v. Sullivan requires public officials suing over official conduct to prove knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. Later decisions extend that requirement to public figures. Thomas and Gorsuch urge reconsideration, particularly of those extensions. Defenders argue that weakening the rule would deter legitimate criticism without solving misinformation.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
The panel affirms dismissal. In a separate concurrence, Oldham criticizes actual malice while following Sullivan as binding precedent.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Oldham criticizes the actual-malice requirement and its consequences for public figures.
After the quotation
He concurs because his court is bound by Sullivan.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Oldham criticizes retaining the actual-malice protection examined in this case. Following binding precedent is compliance rather than endorsement.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseThomas calls for reconsidering actual malice for public figures
“I and others have thus called for reconsideration of the actual-malice ... standard for public figures.”Read statement
Wilson urges judges to reconsider calls to overrule Sullivan
“judges should reconsider their calls for the Supreme Court to overrule Sullivan.”Read statement
Lagoa criticizes Sullivan as a policy-driven constitutional decision
“Sullivan and its progeny are policy-driven decisions dressed up as constitutional law”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Oldham criticizes the constitutional basis of actual malice
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6837-oldham-argues-that-actual-malice-lacks-a-constitutional
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Oldham criticizes the constitutional basis of actual malice". First published: 2026-10-26. Last updated: 2026-10-26. https://disputeindex.com/events/6837-oldham-argues-that-actual-malice-lacks-a-constitutional