Barr v. Matteo
United States Supreme Court case
Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning legal immunity for officers of the executive branch. The Court held that when a federal government official issues a press release or other public statement about an aspect of their official duties, they are absolutely immune from libel suits—at least so long as the libel suit was not authorized by Congress, per Justice Hugo Black, whose concurring opinion provided the decisive fifth vote for immunity. The case originated when John J. Madigan and Linda Matteo, two former employees of the Office of Rent Stabilization, sued acting director William G. Barr over statements he made about them in a press release. In the Supreme Court's plurality opinion for four of five justices in the majority, Justice John Marshall Harlan II said that Barr was immune from being sued over the contents of his press release because his issuance of that press release was within the "outer perimeter" of his official duties. Harlan's opinion further asserted that federal officials "should be free to exercise their duties unembarrassed by the fear of damage suits in respect of acts done in the course of those duties."
The Barr v. Matteo case had an influence on discussions in later cases involving legal immunity. In the case of Scheuer v. Rhodes, the Supreme Court held state executives to qualified immunity. In Joanne Witty’s analysis for the Columbia Law Review, she says that absolute immunity causes inconsistency when compared to qualified immunity with state officials.
The public source identifies “Barr v. Matteo” as united States Supreme Court case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Barr, Matteo and United.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Barr v. Matteo”, the useful work is to connect “united States Supreme Court case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 4, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q19067468. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1959.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Barr v. Matteo”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Barr v. Matteo primary sources, Barr v. Matteo archive and Barr research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Barr v. Matteo”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Barr v. Matteo” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.