# Barr v. Matteo

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 29, 1959 · 360 U.S. 564

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764530

## Case

- **Full name:** BARR v. MATTEO Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 29, 1959
- **Citations:** 360 U.S. 564; 79 S. Ct. 1335; 3 L. Ed. 2d 1434; 1959 U.S. LEXIS 661
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stewart
- **Judges:** Harlan, Black, Warren, Brennan, Stewart, Frankfurter, Clark, Whittaker, Douglas
- **Cited by:** 1,160 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Melvin T. Smith v. Ferron C. Losee, 485 F.2d 334 (1973).
- Negative treatments: 3
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764530

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the executive official enjoyed an absolute privilege from civil damages suit for statements made in a press release regarding personnel decisions
- holding absolute immunity shielded city commissioner from lawsuit for defamatory statements made to press regarding former city prosecutor’s dismissal
- holding that press release issued by acting director of Office of Rent Stabilization regarding employee termination was within scope of director’s official duties and absolutely privileged
- noting that issuance of press releases is common agency practice and that it was unduly restrictive to conclude that policy-making executive's scope of duty did not include making public statements of agency policy on matters of wide public interest
- holding that federal officials have absolute immunity from common law tort liability if their actions are “taken ... within the outer perimeter of [their] line of duty”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Stewart,
dissenting.
My brother Harlan's opinion contains, it seems to me, a lucid and persuasive analysis of the principles that should guide decision in this troublesome area of law. Where I part company is in the application of these principles to the facts of the present case.
I cannot agree that the issuance by the petitioner of this press release was “action in the line of duty.” The statement to the press (set out in note 5 of Mr. Justice Harlan's opinion) did not serve to further any agency function. Instead, it represented a personally motivated effort on the petitioner’s part to disassociate himself from the alleged chicanery with which the agency had been charged.
- By publicizing the action' which he intended, to take when he became permanent Acting Director, and his past ' attitude as a lesser functionary, the petitioner was seeking only to defend his own individual reputation. This was not within, but beyond “the outer perimeter of petitioner’s line of duty.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764530. Public record. Not legal advice.