## Facts

- A newspaper published a news article describing a violent incident at a university and ensuing controversy over its portrayal.
- The article quoted the university’s lawyer as accusing the county district attorney, James P. MacElree II, of electioneering and calling him “the David Duke of Chester County running for office by attacking [the university].”
- MacElree alleged the statement effectively labeled him a racist or sympathetic to racist ideology, harming his reputation.
- MacElree sued the newspaper and the reporter for defamation.

## Issues

1. On preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, was the “David Duke of Chester County” statement incapable of a defamatory meaning as a matter of law?
2. Could the statement be treated at the pleadings stage as non-actionable opinion or rhetorical hyperbole, warranting dismissal with prejudice?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the dismissal of the complaint.
- The Court held the statement was capable of a defamatory meaning because it could reasonably be read as imputing racist views to MacElree.
- The Court declined to rule, on the pleadings alone, that the statement was protected opinion or rhetorical hyperbole.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- On a demurrer, courts accept as true all well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences and resolve doubts in favor of the non-moving party.
- In defamation actions, a court first determines whether the communication is capable of a defamatory meaning; if so, whether it was understood as defamatory in context is generally for the fact-finder.
- A statement is defamatory if it tends to harm reputation so as to lower the person in the estimation of the community or deter others from associating with the person.
- Labeling a public official with a notorious racist comparison may be capable of defamatory meaning because it can imply the official holds racist beliefs.
- “Opinion” is not automatically immune; language framed as opinion may be actionable if it reasonably implies undisclosed, defamatory, and verifiable facts.
- At the pleadings stage, courts should not foreclose claims where the context could permit readers to understand the statement as a factual imputation.

## Conclusion

The court held that the pleaded facts stated a defamation claim because the published comparison to “David Duke” could reasonably be understood as imputing racism to a public official, and the case could not be dismissed on demurrer as non-defamatory or protected opinion as a matter of law.


MacElree v. Phila. Newspapers, Inc., 544 Pa. 117, 674 A.2d 1050 (Pa. 1996)