In the case of Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for the County of Norfolk, 1981, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a Massachusetts law mandating closure of courtrooms during testimony by minor victims in sex-offense trials was unconstitutional as it violated both First and Sixth Amendments rights to public trials and freedom of press. The state argued that this law protected minors from further trauma but the court found no compelling interest outweighing constitutional guarantees. Instead, they suggested individualized determinations on courtroom closures based on each victim's needs rather than a blanket rule. This ruling affirmed that open courts are essential for public scrutiny which is an important aspect in maintaining integrity within judicial proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of judicial power and a misinterpretation of the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press. He contended that there is no constitutional right guaranteeing public access to all stages of criminal trials, especially when it involves sensitive matters such as sexual offenses against minors. He believed that states should have discretion in determining how best to balance between protecting victims' privacy and ensuring fair trial proceedings without undue interference from media coverage or public scrutiny. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for not giving due deference to state laws designed specifically with these considerations in mind.