The U.S. Supreme Court case Frank, Postmaster General of the United States, et al. v. Minnesota Newspaper Association, Inc., 1988 revolved around a dispute over postage rates for second-class mail used by publishers and nonprofit organizations. The Postal Service had established a rate scheme that charged higher prices to commercial users than to nonprofits and educational institutions; this was challenged as discriminatory by the Minnesota Newspaper Association (MNA). MNA argued that it violated their First Amendment rights because it favored certain types of speech over others based on content. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Postal Service stating that differential pricing did not violate free speech rights under the First Amendment since there was no evidence showing an intent to suppress particular ideas or viewpoints through these rates. The court held that postal subsidies were permissible if they served legitimate government interests such as promoting educational and informational materials without discriminating against specific ideologies or perspectives.

In the dissenting opinion for Frank, Postmaster General of the United States, et al. v. Minnesota Newspaper Association, Inc., Justice Scalia argued that Congress did not intend to give preferential postal rates to nonprofit organizations over commercial mailers when it enacted the Postal Reorganization Act in 1970. He contended that there was no clear evidence showing this intent and thus disagreed with the majority's interpretation of legislative history and statutory language. Furthermore, he believed that even if such an intention existed at some point in time, it had been abandoned by subsequent legislation which made no distinction between non-profit and commercial mailers regarding postal rates. Therefore, according to him, all periodicals should be treated equally under law regardless of their profit status.