The short version
- A Louisiana jury found The Advocate liable for defamation after publishing an editorial that falsely claimed Justice Hughes was romantically involved with a lawyer in a 1998 custody dispute.
- The award of $300,000 is significantly lower than the $10 million sought by Hughes, reflecting juror disagreement over the extent of reputational harm despite finding actual malice.
- This verdict follows closely on the heels of a separate defamation loss for The New York Times in Alabama, highlighting a moment of heightened legal risk for major news organizations.
A jury in Iberville Parish, Louisiana, has awarded $300,000 to Jefferson Davis Hughes III, a justice on the state’s Supreme Court, in a rare defamation lawsuit against The Advocate, the region’s largest newspaper. The verdict concludes a complex legal battle centered on a 2019 editorial that accused Hughes of compromising judicial integrity during his earlier tenure as a district court judge. While the award falls far short of the $10 million Hughes sought for reputational injury and emotional distress, it represents a significant legal finding that the newspaper acted with actual malice.
The case hinged on an editorial published two days after an investigative report into a 1998 child custody dispute. The investigation detailed how Hughes refused to recuse himself from a case involving a five-year-old boy named Austin, despite requests from one party who believed Hughes was dating the opposing attorney, Berkley Durbin. While the news report accurately noted that Durbin withdrew from the case shortly before Hughes expanded custody rights for the mother, the subsequent editorial incorrectly stated that Hughes and Durbin were romantically involved in 1999 while she represented the mother.
As a public figure, Hughes bore the heavy burden of proving actual malice, meaning he had to demonstrate that The Advocate published the false statement with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Judge Kevin Kimball ruled that Hughes met this high standard, allowing the jury to consider liability. The trial involved extensive testimony regarding the newspaper’s editorial process and its interactions with Hughes in the years following the publication.
Testimony from Peter Kovacs, the editor-in-chief at the time of the editorial, revealed a contentious relationship between the court and the press. Kovacs stated that the editorial was not part of a coordinated agenda against Hughes, as the justice had alleged. However, he also testified that Hughes initially refused to provide on-the-record comments, storming out of an interview and declining subsequent offers to speak. The newspaper’s defense argued that they waited to clarify the timeline because they perceived serious credibility issues with Hughes and his legal team.
Despite these defenses, the jury found in favor of Hughes after 45 minutes of deliberation. Robert E. Davis, the jury foreman, indicated that the panel was evenly split on whether defamation had occurred but agreed unanimously that the damages did not justify the $10 million claim. The compromise figure of $300,000 reflects this internal division, acknowledging some harm while rejecting the plaintiff’s broader assessment of injury.
The timing of this verdict is notable within the broader landscape of media law. It arrived just one business day after an Alabama jury awarded $9.25 million to Kai Spears in a defamation suit against The New York Times. That case involved erroneous reporting that placed a college basketball player at the scene of a fatal shooting. The consecutive rulings have drawn attention to the willingness of juries to hold major publications accountable for factual errors, even when those outlets argue their mistakes were honest.
In the Alabama case, The New York Times expressed disappointment, characterizing its error as an honest mistake and noting it was the first defamation loss for the publication in fifty years. Conversely, Hughes’ attorney, Chuck Hughes, declared that justice had been served and that his client had successfully cleared his name from what he described as unfortunate defamation. The contrast between the two cases highlights the varying standards and outcomes juries apply when weighing press freedom against individual reputation.
The Advocate took several years to post an editor’s note clarifying the timeline of events in the custody case, despite pressure from Hughes for a quicker response. This delay became a point of contention during the trial, with Hughes arguing that the newspaper failed to admit its error promptly. The editorial staff maintained that they had taken all necessary steps to ensure accuracy at the time of publication, but the jury’s verdict suggests otherwise.
It remains unclear whether The Advocate will appeal the decision. The case underscores the enduring difficulty for journalists and editors in navigating the line between robust commentary and factual assertion, particularly when dealing with public officials who are entitled to strong First Amendment protections against defamation claims. For Hughes, the verdict provides a formal legal repudiation of the allegations made nearly a decade ago.
As both cases settle into the record, they serve as cautionary tales for newsrooms across the country. The financial penalties, while varying widely, signal that juries are increasingly scrutinizing the diligence of editorial processes. For public figures like Hughes, the path to vindication remains steep and expensive, requiring proof not just of falsehood, but of intent or recklessness in its dissemination.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗Louisiana supreme court justice wins rare $300,000 defamation trial against newspaper
