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
Sole v. Wyner, 551 U.S. 74 (2007)
Consumer LostA plaintiff who obtains a preliminary injunction but is ultimately denied a permanent injunction after a full adjudication on the merits does not qualify as a "prevailing party" under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b) for the purposes of recovering attorney's fees.
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007)
Consumer WonThe First Amendment requires that political speech be protected, and as such, the regulation of speech under Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act must not suppress genuine issue advocacy that mentions federal candidates, as it is not the "functional equivalent" of express campaign speech.
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.
Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006)
Consumer WonThe Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit's broad interpretation of the probate exception, which excluded federal jurisdiction over matters related to the validity of a decedent's estate planning instruments, was unwarranted and not supported by Congressional intent or prior Supreme Court decisions.