## Facts

- Robert C. White, a Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department lieutenant seeking promotion to captain, underwent a routine drug test.
- White’s first urine sample initially tested positive for marijuana.
- A second urine sample was taken and transported under irregular circumstances and tested negative.
- The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) publicly criticized the handling of White’s testing and the department’s testing procedures.
- The Washington Post and NBC published reports about the controversy, including that the first test was positive, the second sample was handled irregularly, and White was nonetheless promoted.
- White conceded the core factual assertions were substantially true but claimed the publications implied he used illegal drugs and/or secured promotion through bribery or other improper conduct.
- White sued the FOP, the Post, and NBC for public disclosure of private facts; he also alleged defamation and, as to the media defendants, false light.
- The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether publication of details concerning White’s drug testing and related irregularities was actionable as public disclosure of private facts, or instead concerned a legitimate matter of public interest.
2. Whether the challenged statements and broadcasts were reasonably capable of conveying a defamatory meaning or placing White in a false light by implying illegal drug use or corruption.
3. Whether the Post’s reporting was independently protected by the privilege to publish fair and accurate reports of governmental proceedings.
4. Whether a First Amendment “neutral reportage” privilege should be recognized for media republication of newsworthy accusations.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the FOP, the Post, and NBC.
- The court held the disclosures were about matters of legitimate public concern—White’s fitness for office and possible improprieties in police drug testing—defeating the privacy claim.
- The court held the Post’s and NBC’s publications were not capable, as a matter of law, of bearing the defamatory meanings or false-light implications alleged by White.
- As an alternative ground, the court held the Post was protected by a privilege to publish fair and accurate reports of governmental proceedings.
- The court declined to decide whether a First Amendment neutral reportage privilege exists because it was unnecessary to resolve the appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Public disclosure of facts is not actionable as an invasion of privacy when the publication concerns a legitimate matter of public concern, including the fitness and integrity of a public official and the operation of public institutions.
- In defamation and false-light claims based on implication, courts first decide whether the publication is reasonably capable of conveying the alleged defamatory meaning; if not, the claim fails as a matter of law and may be resolved on summary judgment.
- Substantial truth of the core facts limits liability, and alleged defamatory inferences must be supported by a reasonable reading of the publication as a whole.
- Media defendants are protected when they publish fair and accurate accounts of governmental proceedings or investigations (fair report privilege), even if the reported allegations are damaging.
- A court may avoid deciding the existence or scope of a proposed constitutional privilege (such as neutral reportage) when the case can be resolved on other grounds.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment for all defendants, holding that reporting on a police drug-testing controversy involving a senior officer addressed a matter of public concern and that the media publications were not reasonably capable of the defamatory or false-light meanings claimed; the Post also prevailed under the fair report privilege, and the court left neutral reportage unresolved.


White v. Fraternal Ord. of Police, 909 F.2d 512 (D.C. Cir. 1990)