Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps

Background

A chain of convenience stores known as Thrifty and its principal owner sued the Philadelphia Inquirer after a series of articles (May 1975–May 1976) that accused them of links to organized crime and undue influence on state officials. Pennsylvania law then presumed defamatory statements false and put the burden on publishers to prove truth. At trial a judge told the jury that the plaintiffs bore the burden of proving falsity; the jury found for the newspaper. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed with that ruling and ordered a new trial.

Reasoning

The central question was who must prove whether contested statements are false when a newspaper publishes speech about public affairs. Writing for the Court, Justice O’Connor said that when a newspaper publishes speech of public concern, a private individual must prove the statements were false before recovering damages; the Constitution displaces the common-law presumption that defendants must prove truth. The opinion relied on earlier First Amendment cases about protecting debate on public issues and concluded the rule better protects true speech.

Real world impact

The decision means private people suing newspapers over matters of public concern now must show the challenged statements were false in addition to proving the publisher was at fault. The Court reversed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with this rule. The opinion left open questions about shield laws, how much proof of falsity is needed, and whether the same rule applies to nonmedia defendants.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan joined and said the rule should apply to nonmedia defendants as well. Justice Stevens dissented, arguing the opinion undervalues states’ interest in protecting private reputations and risks shielding malicious or careless publishers.