In Rosenblatt v. Baer (1965), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case involving defamation and public officials. The respondent, Lester Bruce Baer, was sued by Theodore H. Rosenblatt for libel over an article published in a local newspaper that criticized the management of a county-owned ski resort previously managed by Rosenblatt's father-in-law and then himself as his successor. The court held that if someone is considered to be a public official or running for public office, they must prove actual malice - knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth - on part of the defendant to win damages in defamation cases under First Amendment protections against government censorship. The decision expanded upon previous rulings which had established this standard only for elected officials; it clarified that any individual who holds governmental responsibilities can be classified as such regardless of whether they are elected or appointed into their position.

In the dissenting opinion for Rosenblatt v. Baer, Justice Black argued that public officials should not be allowed to sue for libel based on comments related to their official conduct unless they can prove actual malice. He believed that allowing such suits could potentially stifle criticism of government and hinder free speech. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the difficulty in defining who qualifies as a "public official," suggesting this ambiguity could lead to further restrictions on freedom of expression. He also disagreed with the majority's view that a balance must be struck between protecting reputations and promoting uninhibited debate, arguing instead that the First Amendment was designed specifically to protect robust discussion about governmental affairs without fear of legal repercussions.