In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a publisher could be held liable for defamation of a private individual if the published material contained false statements made with actual malice - knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The case arose when an American magazine, owned by Robert Welch Inc., falsely labeled Elmer Gertz, a reputable attorney, as a "Leninist" and "Communist-fronter." The court concluded that while public figures needed to prove actual malice to claim defamation due to their voluntary involvement in public affairs and access to channels of effective communication, private individuals like Gertz did not have such access and therefore required less stringent standards for proving defamation claims. This ruling established clearer guidelines on libel law in relation to public versus private figures.

In the dissenting opinion for Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to allow public figures and private individuals different levels of protection against defamation was a departure from precedent without sufficient justification. He contended that this distinction would lead to an arbitrary application of First Amendment protections based on subjective determinations about who qualifies as a "public figure." Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that states should be allowed to define their own standards of liability for defamatory falsehoods about private individuals. Instead, he believed there should be one national standard set by federal law in order to ensure uniformity across all states. Finally, Rehnquist expressed concern over potential chilling effects on free speech due to fear of state-imposed penalties.