Torts: Striking a Balance: Minnesota's Minority Stance on the Privilege to Defame - Zutz v. Nelson, 788 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 2010)

Abstract

Society has long considered one's reputation an interest worth protecting. At the same time, the law protects an equally important interest in free, uninhibited political speech. At the intersection of these two competing interests lies the doctrine of privilege: the freedom, enjoyed by certain public officials, under certain circumstances, to defame others with impunity. Because absolute privilege comes at the cost of denying relief to victims of intentionally malicious defamatory statements, absolute privilege was historically limited to members of the United States Congress and the highest legislative bodies of a state. In the last thirty years, however, a growing trend has evolved in favor of expanding absolute privilege to subordinate government officials. During this period, Minnesota has consistently declined to adopt this broad application of privilege. Recently, in Zutz v. Nelson, the Minnesota Supreme Court was faced with the decision to maintain its minority stance or join the growing majority. Ultimately, the Minnesota Supreme Court declined to adopt the majority position on the issue, holding that qualified, rather than absolute, privilege is appropriate for subordinate government officials. This case note first outlines the origin and development of absolute privilege. It then details the Minnesota Supreme Court's holding in Zutz, followed by an analysis of the decision. Finally, the note concludes by asserting that the Minnesota Supreme Court continues to strike the right balance between two important, competing public interests by maintaining its minority stance on privilege.

Keywords: Defamation, Privilege, Zutz v. Nelson, Minnesota, Speech and Debate Clause, Tort