The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Indian Tribes Can't Sue for Libel, Just as Other Government Entities Can't
From Cayuga Nation v. Showtime Networks Inc., decided yesterday by the New York intermediate appellate court (Judges Barbara R. Kapnick, Troy K. Webber, Angela M. Mazzarelli & Jeffrey K. Oing):
Plaintiffs allege that in an episode of the television series Billions they were falsely portrayed as having been involved in an illegal casino land deal, bribery of a public official, and blackmail. To the extent asserted by plaintiff Cayuga Nation, their claims were correctly dismissed on the ground that a governmental entity cannot maintain a libel claim. Contrary to Cayuga Nation's contention, First Amendment principles are applicable to cases involving libel claims arising from fictional works of entertainment…. While plaintiffs argue that Native American tribes are a unique kind of government entity, they do not explain how that uniqueness bears on the libel analysis at issue.
The claims asserted by plaintiff Halftown were also correctly dismissed. Supreme Court correctly found that the allegedly defamatory matter in the episode was not "of and concerning" Halftown, that is, the fictional character Jane Halftown was not "so closely akin" to plaintiff that a viewer "would have no difficulty linking the two." The facts that the fictional character Jane Halftown and plaintiff Halftown are both Cayuga, have the same surname, and hold the same or similar positions within the Cayuga tribe do not alter that conclusion[, … especially] given plaintiffs' failure to allege that plaintiff Halftown was involved in negotiating real estate deals or in electoral issues.
Here's what I wrote about the trial court decision:
Friday's decision by New York Judge Kathryn E. Freed in Cayuga Nation v. Showtime Networks Inc. involves a lawsuit over an episode of the Showtime TV series Billions. The show depicted possible bribery and blackmail by the leaders of a "Cayuga Iroquois" tribe, including a council member named "Jane Halftown." Plaintiffs, Cayuga Nation and tribal council member Clint Halftown, claim the show libeled them, but the court said no:
[1.] There can be no claim for libel of a government entity (as opposed to a government official); that's a lesser-known holding of New York Times v. Sullivan, and the court concluded that it applies to tribal governments as well.
[2.] Clint Halftown lost his defamation claim because the show would be perceived as fiction that doesn't make any claims about real people (even ones who share the same last name and job description as a character):
Here, there has been no demonstration that Jane's character is "of and concerning" plaintiff such that the description of Jane's fictional character "is so closely akin to [Mr. Halftown that a viewer of the episode who knew him] would have no difficulty linking the two." … Moreover, … a disclaimer is played during the credits of each episode of the series representing that "[t]he events and characters depicted in [the series] are fictitious" and that "[a]ny similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or to actual events, is purely coincidental." …
[3.] Plaintiffs lost their right of publicity claim: The New York right of publicity statute is "to be narrowly construed and 'strictly limited to nonconsensual commercial appropriations of the name, portrait or picture of a living person.'"
Since the Cayuga Nation is clearly not a living person, the claim against it pursuant to section 51 must be dismissed. Additionally, since "works of fiction and satire do not fall within the narrow scope of the statutory phrases 'advertising' and 'trade'", the claim by both plaintiffs pursuant to section 51 must be dismissed. Hampton v Guare (1st Dept 1993)….
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Tribes are only governments when it's convenient, such as when they want to corner the market on indoor smoking. When they need to blame the large numbers of women missing, murdered and abused on their national land, suddenly they are just a non-profit club and it's the fault of others for not keeping its members safe. When they need to violate laws on fishing, hunting, logging, or gambling - independent nation. When they need FedGov financial assistance - poor nonprofit representing a marginalized group.
And what's worse, the only tribes still in existence are the ones that declared war on Americans because those tribes that were allied with us also intermarried with us and hence literally became Americans.
Hence there really is no difference between the Indian tribes and the Confederacy -- except that we don't recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate governmental entity today.
That's not how tribes work for one thing, and it's simply not true for another. The Pawnee didn't declare war on the US and were in fact close allies. It's also true for the Omaha. They both still exist and I am sure that there are others.
Not in the East -- where they are buying land and "creating" reservations to build casinos on.
The Cayuga bought land and failed to establish sovereignty over it. They are the exact case you're thinking of but I guess you didn't realize they lost.
There are casinos on reservations outside of the East. Both the Pawnee and Omaha have casinos.
Different case -- different "tribe" which hadn't existed in 1934.
https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2021/02/19/interior-department-withdraws-appeal-mashpee-wampanoag-tribe-land-trust-case/4513737001/
The tribe had asked the interior secretary to put about 151 acres of land in Taunton into trust so it could build a casino, as well as another 170 acres in Mashpee. While the assistant interior secretary approved it in 2015, neighbors of the proposed casino and others filed a lawsuit in opposition. They argued the government did not have the authority to take the land into trust in the first place.
Oneidas have fought on the American side in every conflict the US has had. They were a major source of food for the Continental Army at Valley Forge.
Washington's army engaged in cannibalism at Valley Forge?
Also, there's constitutional recognition for Indian tribes.
And the Treaty of Paris obligated that Loyalists would be compensated for their stolen land -- and we never were...
"fictional character Jane Halftown and plaintiff Halftown are both Cayuga, have the same surname, and hold the same or similar positions within the Cayuga tribe "
The writers/producers were pretty reckless choosing the same surname. No other possible Indian names in that tribe?
I'd be willing to bet the show was referring to the plaintiff, its just they put "Not intended to refer to any real person" to cover themselves, which evidently worked.
There is of course a long tradition for doing tbis, see: Citizen Kane.
Plus 100 or more episodes of the various "Law and Order" shows. 'Ripped from the headlines,' indeed. The shows often refer clearly to cases that had been in the news...changing just enough details to become legally immune.
[Side-note: I never understood the legal significance of the boilerplate language all the shows use "all characters are fictional...blah blah blah...any similarity...purely coincidental." If I wrote an episode of Law & Order, and my villain was Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLAW, and the character came from the Ukraine, and physically resembled the real EV . . . and the invented plot was that he sold nuclear secrets to Russia (or murdered people, or molested people, or defrauded his university), would it really make an iota of difference to a court that I stuck in the "purely coincidental" language? Genuine question...does it make an actual difference to a court? Studio lawyers insist that it be stuck in, so I'm guessing the answer is, "Yes, it does."]
The question is whether that disclaimer would have worked if, instead of Charles Foster Kane, they had used something even closer to the real person's name -- like Wilhelm Reinhardt Hearst.
Not government enough to sue them in their own courts.
Too government to sue them in other people's courts.
Nice Catch-22.
Their courts wouldn't pass 14th Amd muster...
I feel like there is a lost opportunity here to include lots of Wild West puns, old time phrases like "circle the wagons", and other similar allusions....
"Only good Indian is a...."?
Can't they charter a corporation (eg, a gambling company), leave [the stuff which can get misrepresented as bad] to that corporation, and have *that* corporation sue for libel if someone says [the stuff that can get misrepresented as bad] is bad?
Only if they concede that they are subject to state law, which prohibits such gambling corporations....
Only the tribe, qua tribe, can do this...
Thanks for this article!