Hatfill Suit Against N.Y. Times To Proceed

High Court Won't Hear Anthrax Case
Associated Press
Tuesday, March 28, 2006; A06

The Supreme Court refused yesterday to block a defamation lawsuit against the New York Times over columns that linked a former Army scientist to the 2001 anthrax killings.

Authorities have never found out who mailed anthrax-laced letters that killed five people and sickened 17 others not long after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Steven J. Hatfill, a physician and bioterrorism expert, was labeled a "person of interest" by then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft but was never charged. He has since sued Ashcroft and others.

A federal judge had thrown out Hatfill's lawsuit against the New York Times over 2002 columns by writer Nicholas Kristof that faulted the FBI for not thoroughly investigating Hatfill. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reinstated the lawsuit, and the Supreme Court declined without comment to hear the case.

New York lawyer David Schulz, who represented the newspaper, said the appeals court decision undermines free-speech protections for reporters and invites more lawsuits over legitimate news reporting.

The Associated Press and about 30 other news organizations urged the court to use the case to clarify reporters' free-speech protections.

"Reporting on government investigations is critical to the public's ability to evaluate how their elected and appointed officials are executing the responsibility of enforcing the laws and protecting the peace," Washington lawyer Paul M. Smith wrote in the groups' filing.

Hatfill's lawyer, Christopher Wright, said Kristof's reporting was reckless, with multiple errors, including the claim that Hatfill had failed three polygraph tests.

The Supreme Court itself was touched by the anthrax scare. Traces of anthrax were found in the court's mailroom, forcing the building's closure for a week in October 2001.

The case will return to federal court in Alexandria, where Hatfill sued in 2004 claiming defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In its ruling, the appeals court said the newspaper columns, taken as a whole, may be considered defamatory.

One of the dissenting judges said the New York Times appeared only to be trying to reveal flaws in the FBI investigation, not to accuse Hatfill of the killings.

The case is New York Times v. Hatfill , 05-897.