The Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 1985 case was a significant Supreme Court ruling that clarified the standard for summary judgment in federal courts. The dispute began when Jack Anderson and his investigative reporting team were sued by Liberty Lobby, a controversial political advocacy group, for defamation following an article published about them. The District Court granted summary judgment to Anderson on the grounds that Liberty Lobby could not prove "actual malice" - knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth - which is required in defamation cases involving public figures due to New York Times Co. v Sullivan (1964). On appeal, however, this decision was reversed with claims that it had applied too stringent a standard of proof at the summary judgement stage. In response to this confusion over standards of proof at different stages of litigation, the Supreme Court held that judges must consider whether reasonable jurors could find by clear and convincing evidence –the level required in such cases–that actual malice existed; if not then they should grant summary judgement as there would be no genuine issue left for trial.

In the dissenting opinion for Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision to apply a "clear and convincing" standard of proof in summary judgment motions was incorrect. He contended that this would unfairly burden plaintiffs by requiring them to present their case at an earlier stage than usual and with more evidence than typically needed at such a point in litigation. Furthermore, he believed it could potentially deny parties their right to a trial by jury as guaranteed under the Seventh Amendment if judges were allowed to weigh evidence during summary judgment proceedings rather than leaving it up to juries during trials. In his view, this new standard blurred the line between judge and jury roles, undermining fundamental principles of civil procedure and constitutional law.