## Facts

- A British journalist published an article criticizing hiring practices at the BBC’s Russian Service, asserting it hired too many ethnic-minority employees and too few who identified with the Russian people.
- A Maryland resident responded with a published letter accusing the journalist, in substance, of racism and anti-Semitism and labeling him a “hate monger.”
- The journalist sued for libel in England and obtained a money judgment under English defamation standards that generally presume falsity and place the burden of proving truth on the defendant, without a U.S.-style actual-malice requirement for public debate.
- Anticipating enforcement efforts in the United States, the letter author filed a U.S. declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that the English libel judgment could not be recognized under Maryland’s version of the Uniform Foreign-Money Judgments Recognition Act.
- The defendant counterclaimed to enforce the English judgment; the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Maryland’s Uniform Foreign-Money Judgments Recognition Act permits denial of recognition of a foreign libel judgment as “repugnant” to Maryland public policy.
2. Whether recognition and enforcement of the English libel judgment in a U.S. court would violate the letter author’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights because the underlying speech would be protected under U.S. constitutional defamation standards.

## Decision

- The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff and refused to recognize the English libel judgment under Maryland law.
- The court dismissed the defendant’s counterclaims seeking enforcement of the English judgment.
- The court concluded the English judgment rested on defamation rules that conflict with Maryland public policy and core U.S. free-speech protections.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed, relying on Maryland’s public-policy determination and agreeing that enforcement would impermissibly burden constitutionally protected speech.

## Legal Principles

- A foreign-country money judgment must be recognized under applicable state recognition law before it can be enforced in a U.S. court.
- Under Maryland’s Uniform Foreign-Money Judgments Recognition Act, recognition may be denied when the foreign judgment is repugnant to Maryland public policy.
- Differences between U.S. and foreign law can justify non-recognition when they implicate fundamental constitutional values, including protections for speech on matters of public concern.
- U.S. constitutional defamation standards generally require heightened safeguards for public debate, including requirements tied to falsity and fault (such as actual malice in appropriate contexts), which may be absent in foreign defamation regimes.
- Epithets and sharp characterizations made in public controversy may constitute protected opinion or rhetorical hyperbole under First Amendment doctrine; courts may refuse to enforce foreign judgments that impose liability for such protected expression.

## Conclusion

The federal courts refused to recognize and enforce an English libel judgment because the liability standards underlying the judgment conflicted with Maryland public policy and would impose damages for speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.


Matusevitch v. Telnikoff, 877 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1995), aff'd, 159 F.3d 636 (D.C. Cir. 1998)