Centerline Logistics Corporation, et al. v. Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific, et al.

This Court, in New Yorks Times Co. v. Sullivan1, constitutionalized an actual malice standard for publicofficial defamation plaintiffs.2 This Court, in Linn v. Plant Guard Workers,3 extended this innovation to false and defamatory statements made during a labor dispute. The Court then balanced the plaintiff’s right under the Petition’s clause with the actual malice standard.4 Compelled by this Court’s constitutional decisions in Sullivan and Linn, states, like California, have incorporated the actual malice standard into their anti-SLAPP statutes. State courts are split over the application of the actual malice standard’s clear and convincing evidence burden to plaintiffs in anti-SLAPP cases and whether it violates a plaintiff’s right to a civil jury trial. These are the questions presented:

1. Whether this Court should overturn Sullivan’s actual malice standard.

2. Whether the Seventh Amendment’s right to a jury trial is incorporated against the States, and, if yes, whether the application of the clear and convincing actual malice standard at the early anti-SLAPP stage of litigation violates a plaintiff’s right to a civil jury trial. 1 376 U.S. 254 (1964). 2 Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 766 (1985) (White, J., concurring in judgment). 3 383 U.S. 53 (1966). 4 McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985).