Time, Inc. v. Hill
The Court held 6–3 that the latter requires that merely negligent intrusions into the former by the media not be civilly actionable.
385 U.S. 374 · No. 22 · 1966 term · Warren Court
Decided Jan 9, 1967 · argued Apr 27, 1966, reargued Oct 18, 1966
First Amendment · Libel, privacy: true and false light invasions of privacy
Majority opinion: William Brennan
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Vacated and remanded. Time, Inc. won.
What this ruling means
Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the New York Supreme Court, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.
Time, Inc. 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.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case involving issues of privacy in balance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and principles of freedom of speech. The Court held 6–3 that the latter requires that merely negligent intrusions into the former by the media not be civilly actionable. It expanded that principle from its landmark defamation holding in New York Times v. Sullivan.
The Hill family had sued after Life implied in a blurb that the upcoming film adaptation of The Desperate Hours was based on the real-life incident where they were held hostage in their home by escaped convicts. It was accompanied by a photo of the Hills' house in a suburb of Philadelphia, from which they had moved shortly afterwards due to the lingering psychological effects of the episode. In fact, the plot of the novel and a successful play based on it were, while inspired by the Hills' experience, unrelated to it.
Former Vice President Richard M. Nixon argued the Hills' case before the Court.
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.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1966 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
William BrennanWrote the majority opinion
William DouglasWrote a concurrence
Hugo BlackWrote a concurrence
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Potter StewartJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Abe FortasWrote a dissent
John HarlanWrote a dissent
Earl WarrenJoined a dissent
Tom ClarkJoined a dissent
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.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Time, Inc.Magazine
- Respondent
- HillInjured person or legal entity, nonphysically and non-employment related
- Reached the Court by
- Appeal (the Court was required 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.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- First Amendment (speech, press, and assembly)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
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.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jan 9, 1967DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: vacated and remanded. Time, Inc. won.
- Oct 18, 1966RearguedReargued · The Court heard the case argued a second time.
- Apr 27, 1966ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the New York Supreme Court: affirmed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York trial 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.
Other decisions on the same issue
6 other argued cases since 1946 on libel, privacy: true and false light invasions of privacy, newest first.
- Bartnicki et al. v. Vopper, aka Williams, et al.532 U.S. 514May 21, 2001 · 532 U.S. 514First Amendment6–36–3 band
- The Florida Star v. B. J. F.491 U.S. 524Jun 21, 1989 · 491 U.S. 524First Amendment6–36–3 band
- Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.433 U.S. 562Jun 28, 1977 · 433 U.S. 562First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services et al.Landmark · Separation of powers433 U.S. 425Jun 28, 1977 · 433 U.S. 425First AmendmentLandmark · Separation of powers7–27–2 band
- Cox Broadcasting Corp. et al. v. Cohn420 U.S. 469Mar 3, 1975 · 420 U.S. 469First Amendment8–18–1 band
- Cantrell et al. v. Forest City Publishing Co. et al.419 U.S. 245Dec 18, 1974 · 419 U.S. 245First Amendment8–18–1 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.
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.