## Facts

- Donald (Ronald) E. Galella, a freelance celebrity photographer, persistently photographed Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and her minor children.
- Galella engaged in repeated, close-range, and intrusive conduct in public and near private settings, including:
  - jumping into the path of John F. Kennedy Jr.’s bicycle in Central Park, prompting Secret Service intervention and Galella’s arrest;
  - interrupting Caroline Kennedy during tennis and intruding at the children’s schools;
  - approaching Onassis at very close range, including maneuvering a powerboat near her while she was swimming and crowding her at public events.
- Secret Service agents assigned to protect the Kennedy children acted to control Galella’s proximity and conduct during certain incidents.
- After trial, the district court found Galella’s conduct constituted harassment and related tortious conduct (including assault/battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress) and granted broad injunctive relief limiting his contact and proximity.
- Galella sued Onassis and Secret Service agents for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and interference with trade; Onassis counterclaimed for injunctive relief, and the United States intervened to protect the Secret Service’s protective function.

## Issues

1. Whether Onassis or the Secret Service agents were liable to Galella for false arrest, malicious prosecution, or interference with trade arising from the agents’ actions.
2. Whether Galella’s pattern of intrusive conduct justified injunctive relief to protect Onassis’s and her children’s privacy and safety.
3. Whether the First Amendment provides absolute immunity for a press actor’s conduct while gathering news, precluding tort liability or injunctive restrictions.

## Decision

- Affirmed dismissal of Galella’s claims against the Secret Service agents and Onassis for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and interference with trade.
- Affirmed the availability of injunctive relief for Onassis and the United States based on a demonstrated pattern of harassment and likely continuation.
- Modified the injunction to narrow its scope while still protecting safety and privacy, including limits such as prohibiting Galella from:
  - coming within 25 feet of Onassis;
  - touching her or blocking her movement in public;
  - engaging in acts foreseeably jeopardizing her safety; and
  - engaging in conduct reasonably foreseeable to harass, alarm, or frighten her.
- Rejected the contention that newsgathering is absolutely privileged under the First Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- The First Amendment does not confer absolute immunity on the press for unlawful conduct committed in the course of newsgathering; generally applicable tort and safety rules remain enforceable.
- Public-figure status does not extinguish an individual’s protectable interests in personal security and freedom from harassment; permissible intrusion is limited by reasonableness and necessity.
- Injunctive relief may issue to prevent ongoing or threatened harassment where legal remedies are inadequate and continuation is likely, but restrictions must be limited to what is necessary to prevent the harm.
- Protective actions by Secret Service agents acting within statutory duties, on the facts known to them, can defeat claims such as false arrest and malicious prosecution absent proof of improper direction or influence by a private party.

## Conclusion

The court held that persistent, dangerous, and harassing newsgathering conduct may be enjoined without violating the First Amendment, while requiring that any injunction be tailored to prevent harassment and safety risks without unnecessarily restricting lawful press activity.


Galella v. Onassis, 487 F.2d 986 (2d Cir. 1973)