A Good Quarrel: America's Top Legal Reporters Share Stories from Inside the Supreme Court

Time Inc. v. Hill: A Future President Makes His Case

Time Inc. v. Hill A Future President Makes His Case argued april 27, 1966 fred graham In 1952, three escaped convicts took James Hill, his wife, and their ‹ve children hostage in their Whitemarsh, Pennsylvania, home. After nineteen hours, the family was released unharmed. The convicts were later apprehended in a violent clash with police during which two of them were killed. In 1953, Joseph Hays published a novel based on the Hill family’s ordeal. When the novel was subsequently made into a play, Life magazine printed an article about the play that mirrored many of its inaccuracies concerning the Hill family’s experience. Alleging that the magazine had deliberately misrepresented his story, Hill sought damages against Life. On appeal from an adverse ruling, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court remanded for a new trial, where a reduced adverse ruling was imposed on Life. Following an unsuccessful appeal in the New York Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court granted Life’s owner, Time Inc., certiorari.| 169 To listen to passages from oral arguments indicated with , visit www.goodquarrel.com. ;)) when richard nixon rose in the supreme court to argue for the appellee in the case of Time Inc. v. Hill (1967),1 more was at stake than the outcome of a constitutional case of ‹rst impression. To be sure, the central constitutional point at issue was an important one. The year was 1966, just two years after the Supreme Court had, in its landmark ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964),2 recognized sweeping constitutional defenses for the news media in libel cases. The Time case would determine whether the Supreme Court would extend similar First Amendment protections to the media in a growing number of lawsuits for damages brought under state tort laws designed to protect individuals ’ right of privacy. When most cases are argued in the Supreme Court, the legal question or questions at issue are the sole focus of events—and indeed, the core constitutional issue in this case was one of substantial importance. But the appearance of the ever-controversial Nixon presented a series of subplots that swirled beneath the surface of the proceedings that day. Would Nixon, a political creature who had not argued in court in decades, measure up in the Supreme Court? Would sparks ›y between the former vice president and Chief Justice Earl Warren, two archenemies during their days as California politicians? Would Nixon’s resentment of the press, immortalized by his rant to reporters that he was leaving politics and they would not have “Nixon to kick around any more” (Newton 2006, 396), prompt him to go overboard in arguing for a citizen who claimed that a magazine had published a false story about his family to make a pro‹t? And ‹nally, why was Nixon arguing the case, anyway? A talented young lawyer in Nixon’s ‹rm, Leonard Garment , had won a judgment and preserved it at every stage below, so why would courtroom neophyte Nixon take over in the last crucial round? Would it be seen as part of a strategy to rehabilitate the former vice president’s image for another run for the presidency in 1968, a possible politicization of the case that might muddy its legal focus? His case was an important one, growing out of increasing public| a good quarrel 170 1. 385 U.S. 374. 2. 376 U.S. 254. concerns that the ever-more-powerful news media would trample on the privacy rights of individuals in a competitive frenzy to boost circulation or ratings. The case had its beginning in 1952, when three escaped convicts invaded the home of Philadelphia suburbanite James Hill and took Hill and his family hostage. After a harrowing nineteen hours of imprisonment, the family was released unharmed. The experience inspired the publication of a best-selling novel, The Desperate Hours, in which the Hill family’s names were changed but the story closely followed the Hills’ ordeal. Early in 1955 a play based on the book, also called The Desperate Hours, was set to open on Broadway. Life magazine , Time Inc.’s ›agship publication, decided to run a major article about the event. The Hill family had long since left Philadelphia in search of anonymity elsewhere, and Life’s editors rented the house where the Hills’ hostage ordeal had taken place. Magazine staff photographed a series of reenactments using the actors who...