The U.S. Supreme Court case Michigan Citizens for an Independent Press v. Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United States, et al., 1989 revolved around a challenge to the Newspaper Preservation Act (NPA) of 1970 which allowed certain newspapers in economic distress to form joint operating arrangements without violating antitrust laws. The plaintiffs argued that this exemption was unconstitutional because it gave preferential treatment to some press entities over others and thus violated their First Amendment rights. However, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of NPA by a unanimous decision stating that Congress had acted within its power when it passed NPA as it sought to ensure diverse editorial voices in local markets and prevent monopolies from forming among daily newspapers.

In the dissenting opinion for Michigan Citizens for an Independent Press v. Thornburgh, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a federal law allowing newspaper joint operating agreements (JOAs). He argued that this exemption from antitrust laws was not necessary to preserve multiple editorial voices in markets where only one financially viable newspaper existed. Instead, he believed it allowed newspapers to form monopolies and limit competition, contrary to public interest. Furthermore, he contended that Congress did not have sufficient evidence when they decided JOAs were necessary for preserving diverse editorial voices. Therefore, according to him, the Newspaper Preservation Act violated First Amendment principles by giving government too much power over press freedom and diversity of viewpoints.