In the case of Clews v. Jamieson in 1900, Henry Clews, a New York banker and financier, sued Alexander C. Jamieson for libel over a letter that was published in several newspapers. The letter accused Clews of fraudulent business practices related to his handling of certain railroad bonds. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jamieson on the basis that he had not acted with malice when he wrote and published the letter; rather, he believed its contents to be true based on information available at the time. The court also noted that while it is important to protect individuals from false accusations which could harm their reputation or livelihoods, it is equally crucial to allow for open discussion about matters affecting public interest such as corporate conduct - even if some statements made during these discussions turn out later to be incorrect or exaggerated. This ruling set an important precedent by establishing standards for determining whether speech can be considered defamatory: namely whether there was actual malice involved (i.e., knowledge that a statement is false or reckless disregard for its truth), and whether the subject matter pertains directly enough to public concern so as warrant protection under First Amendment rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Clews v. Jamieson argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with established principles of international law and violated the rights of American citizens abroad. The dissenting justices believed that, as a matter of principle, an individual should not be subjected to prosecution in one country for acts committed in another unless there is a specific agreement between those countries allowing such action. They also expressed concern about potential abuses if foreign governments were allowed to prosecute Americans based on their own interpretations or misinterpretations of U.S laws. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that Mr. Clews had voluntarily submitted himself to British jurisdiction by choosing to live there while knowing he was under investigation in America; instead, they felt this constituted coercion rather than consent.