In the case of Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that in cases involving media defendants and matters of public concern, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to show falsity rather than on defendant to prove truthfulness. The dispute arose when Maurice S. Hepps and a group of private figures who were involved in businesses subject to state regulation sued Philadelphia Newspapers for defamation after they published articles implying their involvement in organized crime activities which affected their business operations negatively. The court held that allowing states to place burden on media defendants could inhibit free speech as protected by First Amendment rights because it would discourage them from publishing controversial pieces due to fear of inability to prove every fact during litigation.

In the dissenting opinion for Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., v. Hepps et al., Justice White argued that the majority's decision to place the burden of proof on private-figure plaintiffs in defamation cases involving matters of public concern was unjustified and inconsistent with previous court rulings. He contended that this shift would unduly protect media defendants at the expense of individuals' reputations, undermining state laws designed to safeguard these interests. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that false statements do not contribute to democratic discourse; instead, he believed they could cause significant harm and should not be protected by a presumption of First Amendment rights. In his view, requiring plaintiffs to prove falsity as well as fault would impose an excessive burden on those seeking redress for damage caused by defamatory publications.