Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Herbert v. Lando Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States • 1979 • Docket #1507918

Create New Course

Create a new course to organize your saved briefs

Enter the name of the course (e.g., Constitutional Law)

Enter the term when you're taking this course (e.g., Spring 2025)

60 L. Ed. 2d 115 99 S. Ct. 1635 441 U.S. 153 1979 U.S. LEXIS 88 27 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1 4 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2575 3 Fed. R. Serv. 822 Constitutional Law Torts Civil Procedure Evidence

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Try Free for 14 Days

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A public figure suing for libel sought to question a journalist about his editorial process to prove “actual malice.” The Supreme Court held the First Amendment does not create a special privilege protecting journalists from inquiry into their state of mind or editorial process during discovery.

Legal Significance: This case clarifies that the First Amendment protections established in New York Times v. Sullivan do not include an evidentiary privilege for the editorial process. It affirms that a defamation plaintiff may directly probe a journalist’s state of mind to prove actual malice.

Herbert v. Lando Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Petitioner Anthony Herbert, a retired Army officer, became a public figure after accusing his superiors of covering up war crimes in Vietnam. Respondents, including CBS, producer Barry Lando, and narrator Mike Wallace, produced a “60 Minutes” segment and a related magazine article that Herbert alleged were defamatory. Herbert sued for libel. As a public figure, he conceded he had to prove the respondents published damaging falsehoods with “actual malice” under the standard set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan—that is, with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. To establish this requisite state of mind, Herbert deposed Lando. During the deposition, Lando refused to answer questions concerning his thoughts, conclusions, and conversations with colleagues during the editorial process. Lando asserted a First Amendment privilege protecting the “editorial process” from such inquiry, arguing that compelling disclosure would have a chilling effect on journalistic freedom. The District Court rejected this claim, but the Court of Appeals reversed, recognizing an absolute privilege for the editorial process. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press create an evidentiary privilege that shields a media defendant in a libel action from discovery inquiries into their editorial process and state of mind?

No, the First Amendment does not create an evidentiary privilege for the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse c

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press create an evidentiary privilege that shields a media defendant in a libel action from discovery inquiries into their editorial process and state of mind?

Conclusion

*Herbert v. Lando* establishes that while the First Amendment provides substantive protection Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse ci

Legal Rule

In a defamation action brought by a public official or public figure, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum

Legal Analysis

Justice White, writing for the majority, reasoned that the "actual malice" standard Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • The First Amendment does not create an absolute privilege that shields
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?