Supreme protection for Bay State gov?
Court hears defamation arguments
The state’s highest court is considering whether a sitting governor has limitless protections against defamation lawsuits — an impenetrable privilege that would shield the Corner Office even if the top executive knowingly lies.
The Supreme Judicial Court yesterday heard arguments from an attorney for former Gov. Deval Patrick that every Bay State governor carries an “absolute privilege” that protects them from defamation suits “made in connection with the Governor’s official duties,” according to court documents.
Justices for the SJC seemed wary of granting such an expansive privilege, and through questioning attempted to see if there were any limits to what a sitting governor might say if they ruled for Patrick.
“What if we had a governor who had no respect for the truth and in a situation like this said: ‘I fired this person because we found child porn on her computer?’” said SJC Chief Justice Ralph Gants. “It turns out to be totally false and absolutely defamatory. Under your regime, is there no remedy?”
“That’s correct your honor,” said Michael Pineault, an attorney for Patrick. “A plaintiff would have no recourse in the event that the court granted an absolute privilege, even if it were an absolutely defamatory statement.”
Patrick has invoked this hoped-for privilege in a defamation suit brought by former Sex Offender Registry Board Chairwoman Saundra Edwards. She claims she was defamed by Patrick, who “falsely and maliciously” told the press she was fired, even though she said she agreed to resign, according to the suit.
Edwards filed the suit after the former governor told the press that she and another official used “inappropriate at least, maybe unlawful” pressure in an attempt to force a hearing officer to list Patrick’s brother-in-law, Bernard Sigh, as a sex offender. The hearing officer ruled that Sigh was not obligated to register in Massachusetts after a 1993 California spousal rape conviction.
Superior Court Judge Richard Welch III was unconvinced by Patrick’s absolute privilege defense and threw out his bid to toss Edwards’ suit last April.
The argument for granting the privilege is that it allows a governor to speak candidly without the fear of litigation, according to Pineault. Edwards’ attorneys said that argument is disingenuous.