Why did the Supreme Court say appellate courts could review facts in public-official libel cases?

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that appellate courts have the authority to review the facts in public-official libel cases because of the constitutional issues involved.1

Typically, appellate courts are limited to reviewing questions of law; however, the Court determined that this expanded power was necessary to ensure that local juries did not reach improper verdicts that infringed upon First Amendment protections. By exercising this oversight, the Supreme Court aimed to prevent states from using minor factual errors or technicalities as a basis to silence the press or punish critics of governmental actions. This ensured that libel laws could not be weaponized to stifle the "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" public debate essential to a democracy.1