## Facts

- A February 28, 1993 ATF raid on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas led to a deadly gunfight and intense public scrutiny over why the raid failed.
- John McLemore, a KWTX-TV reporter, covered the raid live from the scene; his reporting was widely rebroadcast.
- In the aftermath, public debate focused on whether media presence contributed to the failure of the raid, including whether media activity alerted the Davidians.
- WFAA-TV aired reports suggesting that local media presence, particularly McLemore’s, may have alerted the Davidians and contributed to the raid’s failure.
- McLemore claimed the broadcasts harmed his reputation and sued WFAA-TV for defamation.

## Issues

1. Whether McLemore was a limited-purpose public figure regarding the controversy over the failed ATF raid.
2. If so, whether McLemore was required to prove actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth) rather than negligence.
3. Whether the summary-judgment record raised a genuine issue of material fact on actual malice.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals and rendered judgment that McLemore take nothing.
- The court held that the Branch Davidian raid and its aftermath constituted a public controversy.
- The court held that McLemore became a limited-purpose public figure by thrusting himself to the forefront of the controversy through his prominent coverage and subsequent public commentary.
- The allegedly defamatory broadcasts were germane to McLemore’s participation in that controversy because they concerned his role at the scene and the media’s effect on the raid.
- Applying the actual-malice standard, the court held WFAA-TV was entitled to summary judgment because the record negated actual malice and McLemore produced no evidence creating a fact issue.

## Legal Principles

- A limited-purpose public figure is one who voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues.
- Limited-purpose public-figure status is evaluated by: (1) existence of a public controversy, (2) the plaintiff’s role in the controversy, and (3) whether the alleged defamation is germane to that role.
- A defamation plaintiff who is a limited-purpose public figure must prove actual malice: publication with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.
- On summary judgment, once the defendant negates actual malice, the plaintiff must present evidence raising a genuine issue that the defendant entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the publication.

## Conclusion

The court held that a journalist who became a prominent participant in public debate about a major event was a limited-purpose public figure for that controversy and could not recover for defamation absent evidence of actual malice; because the record showed no triable issue on actual malice, WFAA-TV was entitled to take-nothing summary judgment.


WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. 1998)