Tory v. Cochran, 544 U.S. 734 (2005)
Primary Holding
A permanent injunction that prohibits all future speech about an admitted public figure, in the context of a defamation action, violates the First Amendment.
In the case of Tory v. Cochran, a man named Ulysses Tory was stopped by a court from making negative statements about a famous lawyer, Johnnie Cochran, after Tory spread false claims that Cochran owed him money. The Supreme Court decided that this kind of court order, which silences someone from speaking about a public figure, goes against the First Amendment right to free speech. This ruling is important for consumers because it protects the right to express opinions and share information about public figures, ensuring that people can speak freely without fear of being silenced by the courts. This case is relevant if someone feels they have been wrongfully restricted from discussing or criticizing a public figure.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In the case of Tory v. Cochran, the underlying dispute arose from a state-law defamation action initiated by Johnnie Cochran against Ulysses Tory. Cochran alleged that Tory, along with Ruth Craft and others, engaged in a series of unlawful defamatory actions, including falsely claiming that Cochran owed him money, writing threatening letters demanding $10 million, and picketing Cochran’s office with signs containing insults and obscenities. The trial court found that Tory's claims were baseless and that his actions constituted a continuous pattern of libelous and slanderous behavior aimed at coercing Cochran into paying money to which Tory was not entitled. Following the trial court's findings, a permanent injunction was issued, prohibiting Tory, Craft, and their associates from engaging in any further public speech or actions related to Cochran and his law firm. Tory and Craft appealed this decision to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial court's ruling. Subsequently, they filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, questioning whether the permanent injunction violated the First Amendment by preventing all future speech about an admitted public figure. The procedural history reached the Supreme Court after the California Court of Appeal's affirmation of the injunction. During the Supreme Court proceedings, Johnnie Cochran passed away, leading his counsel to suggest that the case be dismissed as moot due to the nature of California law, which does not recognize defamation claims for deceased individuals. However, Tory and Craft contested this assertion, arguing that the injunction remained valid and enforceable despite Cochran's death, as it did not explicitly become invalid upon his passing.
Whether a permanent injunction as a remedy in a defamation action, preventing all future speech about an admitted public figure, violates the First Amendment.
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- March 22, 2005
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Breyer
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Tenet v. Doe, 544 U.S. 1 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Supreme Court held that the longstanding rule established in Totten v. United States prohibits suits against the government based on covert espionage agreements, thereby reversing the lower courts' decisions that allowed the respondents' claims to proceed.
Ballard v. Commissioner, 544 U.S. 40 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Supreme Court held that the Tax Court's practice of withholding special trial judges' reports from the public and excluding them from the record on appeal violates the principles of due process and transparency in judicial proceedings.
Bell v. Thompson, 545 U.S. 794 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Court of Appeals abused its discretion by withholding its mandate for more than five months after the denial of certiorari without entering a formal order.
San Remo Hotel, L. P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005)
Consumer LostFederal courts cannot create an exception to the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. §1738, for claims brought under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, thereby affirming that state court decisions on takings claims must be respected in federal court.