InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Barr v. Matteo et al.

The Court held that a federal executive official who issues a press release about their official duties is absolutely immune from libel suits, so the acting director could not be sued over his press release about two former employees.· AI-written

360 U.S. 564 · No. 350 · 1958 term · Warren Court

Decided Jun 29, 1959 · argued Apr 20, 1959

Economic activity · Corruption, governmental or governmental regulation of other than as in campaign spending

Majority opinion: John Harlan

The voteMajorityDissent

5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent

4 dissents (5–4)

Reversed. Barr won.

What this ruling means

Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.

Barr was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning legal immunity for officers of the executive branch. The Court held that when a federal government official issues a press release or other public statement about an aspect of their official duties, they are absolutely immune from libel suits—at least so long as the libel suit was not authorized by Congress, per Justice Hugo Black, whose concurring opinion provided the decisive fifth vote for immunity. The case originated when John J. Madigan and Linda Matteo, two former employees of the Office of Rent Stabilization, sued acting director William G. Barr over statements he made about them in a press release. In the Supreme Court's plurality opinion for four of five justices in the majority, Justice John Marshall Harlan II said that Barr was immune from being sued over the contents of his press release because his issuance of that press release was within the "outer perimeter" of his official duties. Harlan's opinion further asserted that federal officials "should be free to exercise their duties unembarrassed by the fear of damage suits in respect of acts done in the course of those duties."

The Barr v. Matteo case had an influence on discussions in later cases involving legal immunity. In the case of Scheuer v. Rhodes, the Supreme Court held state executives to qualified immunity. In Joanne Witty’s analysis for the Columbia Law Review, she says that absolute immunity causes inconsistency when compared to qualified immunity with state officials. In her analysis, she proposes that immunity should be determined by the nature of the official’s offense rather than their rank, whether state or federal. She writes that this approach would ensure that immunity is as broad as necessary to prevent unwarranted interference with the government.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1958 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianDouglasBlackWarrenBrennanClarkStewartWhittakerHarlanFrankfurter

Majority(5)

Dissent(4)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
BarrGovernmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact (United States)
Respondent
Matteo et al.Governmental employee or job applicant (United States)
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Decided by
Federal common law
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 29, 1959DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed. Barr won.
  2. Apr 20, 1959ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit: remand.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the District Of Columbia U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

24 other argued cases since 1946 on corruption, governmental or governmental regulation of other than as in campaign spending, newest first.

  1. Snyder v. United States144 S. Ct. 1947Jun 26, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 1947Economic activity6–36–3 band

  2. Universal Health Services, Inc. v. Escobar, Julio, et al579 U.S. 176Jun 16, 2016 · 579 U.S. 176Economic activity8–0Unanimous band

  3. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter575 U.S. 650May 26, 2015 · 575 U.S. 650Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  4. United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California526 U.S. 398Apr 27, 1999 · 526 U.S. 398Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  5. John H. Evans, Jr. v. United States504 U.S. 255May 26, 1992 · 504 U.S. 255Economic activity6–36–3 band

  6. Robert L. McCormick v. United States500 U.S. 257May 23, 1991 · 500 U.S. 257Economic activity6–36–3 band
  7. Lawrence H. Crandon, et al. v. United States494 U.S. 152Feb 27, 1990 · 494 U.S. 152Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  8. McNally v. United States483 U.S. 350Jun 24, 1987 · 483 U.S. 350Economic activity7–27–2 band

  9. Dixson v. United States465 U.S. 482Feb 22, 1984 · 465 U.S. 482Economic activity5–45–4 band
  10. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Sadlowski et al.457 U.S. 102Jun 14, 1982 · 457 U.S. 102Economic activity5–45–4 band
  11. Helstoski v. Meanor, United States District Judge, et al.442 U.S. 500Jun 18, 1979 · 442 U.S. 500Economic activity7–18–1 band
  12. United States v. Helstoski442 U.S. 477Jun 18, 1979 · 442 U.S. 477Economic activity6–27–2 band
  13. United States v. Bornstein et al.423 U.S. 303Jan 14, 1976 · 423 U.S. 303Economic activity5–36–3 band
  14. United States v. Brewster408 U.S. 501Jun 29, 1972 · 408 U.S. 501Economic activity6–36–3 band
  15. Pipefitters Local Union No. 562 et al. v. United States407 U.S. 385Jun 22, 1972 · 407 U.S. 385Economic activity6–27–2 band
  16. United States v. Neifert-White Co.390 U.S. 228Mar 5, 1968 · 390 U.S. 228Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
  17. United States v. Acme Process Equipment Co.385 U.S. 138Dec 5, 1966 · 385 U.S. 138Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  18. United States v. Johnson383 U.S. 169Feb 24, 1966 · 383 U.S. 169Economic activity7–0Unanimous band
  19. United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co.364 U.S. 520Jan 9, 1961 · 364 U.S. 520Economic activity6–36–3 band
  20. Howard v. Lyons et al.360 U.S. 593Jun 29, 1959 · 360 U.S. 593Economic activity6–36–3 band
  21. United States v. Shirey359 U.S. 255Apr 20, 1959 · 359 U.S. 255Economic activity5–45–4 band
  22. United States v. Rumely345 U.S. 41Mar 9, 1953 · 345 U.S. 41Economic activity7–0Unanimous band
  23. United States v. Hood et al.343 U.S. 148Mar 31, 1952 · 343 U.S. 148Economic activity5–45–4 band
  24. United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations et al.335 U.S. 106Jun 21, 1948 · 335 U.S. 106Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.