Holding: YesReasoning: The First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Brennan, the Court ruled for the Times. When a statement concerns a public figure, the Court held, it is not enough to show that it is false for thepress to be liable for libel. Instead, the target of the statement must show that it was made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for its falsity. Brennan used the term "actual malice" to summarize this standard, although he did not intend the usual meaning of a malicious purpose. In libel law, “malice” had meant knowledge or gross recklessness rather than intent, since courtsfound it difficult to imagine that someone would knowingly disseminate false information without a bad intent. Significance: It was significant because it was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established the actual malice standard that must be met for press reports about public officials to be considered libel.Concurring/dissenting opinions: Chief Justice was Earl Warren and the Associate Justices were Hugo Black, William Douglas, Tom Clark, John Harlan ll, William Brennan Jr, Potter Stewart, Byron White and Arthur Goldberg. The Court's decision for The Times was unanimous, 9–0. Therule of law applied by the Alabama courts was found unconstitutional for its failure to provide safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press, as required by the First and Fourteenth Amendment.