Bryant v. Mississippi Today
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date Filed: Oct. 14, 2025
Background: In 2022, Mississippi Today published a five-part, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative series that revealed how former Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant used his office to steer state dollars to benefit family and friends.
Bryant and his wife sued the nonprofit news outlet and three of its employees, alleging they defamed him in public comments about the series’ findings.
In April 2025, a Mississippi circuit court judge dismissed the lawsuit, in part because Bryant and his wife didn’t plausibly allege that the defendants made the statements with “actual malice.” Public official and public figure plaintiffs like Bryant must show actual malice — namely, that the defendants knew that the statements they made were false or at a minimum, consciously chose to disregard the high probability that they were false — in order to be successful in defamation lawsuits.
Bryant and his wife appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Our Position: In a friend-of-the-court brief joined by the Mississippi Press Association, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is urging the Mississippi Supreme Court to affirm the circuit court’s order dismissing the lawsuit, arguing it “protects the ability of news organizations, particularly local newsrooms, to report in the public interest.”
- Meritless libel lawsuits chill news reporting, even when media defendants are ultimately successful in court, because of the money, time, and attention they require to defend and the fear of future lawsuits they can instill, so newsrooms depend on procedural and substantive protections to avoid protracted litigation.
- Local news reporting, which has been in steep decline around the country, including in Mississippi, is a vital public good and keeps political leaders accountable to the people, and when that reporting exists, it must be protected from meritless litigation.
From the Brief: “It is more necessary than ever to ensure that the press is not forced to spend precious resources defending against lawsuits designed to chill speech, just for gathering and reporting the news. The alternative would lead to a less informed public and less accountable leaders and institutions, a result anathema to our constitutional system.”
Related: To learn more about actual malice, check out our explainer here.