The United States Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) extended the scope of protection provided to the press when covering public officials, requiring officials claiming libel by the press to prove "actual malice" (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of truth or falsity). The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 limited expression by critics of the Federalist administration of President John Adams. The Court has implied in recent years that if a challenge to the law had been brought, the founders of the Republic would have rejected federal government restrictions on seditious libel (speech overtly critical of the government). Despite such suggestions in cases like New York Times v. Sullivan, a review of the literature shows that it is more likely that the Court would have upheld the Alien and Sedition Acts. Three members of the Adams-era Court supported the statutes, and every justice was a Federalist appointee. Furthermore, the Court had upheld expression limits in other contexts, and state laws restricting speech enjoyed broad support. Justice Brennan's majority opinion in Sullivan, which suggested that the founders would have opposed seditious libel prosecutions, misread American history and begged the question presented to the Court. Brennan's approach also ignored the low value placed on expression by English common law, from which early American law borrowed heavily. The Court's 1964 declaration that the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional should have been based upon an analysis of the social functions of speech, not a misreading of history. (One hundred thirty-two notes are included.) (SG)