Professor's #TheyLied Defamation Case Against National Academy of Sciences (Related to Sexual Harassment Allegations) Can Go Forward

Key Takeaways

• D.C. Circuit permits Castillo’s direct defamation claims against NAS.
• Court deems Section 4 violation claim potentially defamatory.
• Defamation‑by‑implication claim against McNutt rejected for lack of facts.
• Case remanded to evaluate alleged negligence in publishing statements.
• Ruling may force academies to tighten communication about misconduct investigations.

Pulse Analysis

The D.C. Circuit’s recent opinion in *Butters v. National Academy of Sciences* marks a pivotal moment for how scholarly societies handle misconduct disclosures. By finding that the academy’s public notice – stating that Castillo violated a Code of Conduct section expressly covering sexual harassment – could be read as defamatory, the court signals that institutions must substantiate any allegations with concrete evidence before making them public. This aligns with a broader trend in defamation jurisprudence that balances reputational protection against the need for transparent accountability in academia.

At the same time, the judges drew a clear line on implied defamation, ruling that Castillo’s complaint lacked the specific factual allegations required to show that NAS President Marcia McNutt endorsed a defamatory inference. The dissenting opinion underscored the relevance of third‑party reporting, but the majority held that without affirmative evidence of intent, the academy’s quoted remarks remain protected. This nuance underscores the high evidentiary bar for plaintiffs seeking to hold leaders liable for the way media outlets frame institutional actions.

For universities, research institutes, and professional societies, the decision serves as a cautionary tale. Organizations must craft membership‑revocation notices and press releases with precise language, ensuring that any reference to conduct violations is backed by documented findings. Failure to do so could expose them to costly litigation and reputational harm. Moreover, the case may influence future policy drafting around code‑of‑conduct enforcement, prompting tighter internal review processes before public disclosure of alleged harassment or other serious misconduct.