In the case of Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., et al. v. Jerome, Judge (1977), the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Philadelphia Newspapers, asserting that pretrial closure orders are subject to immediate appeal under federal law. The dispute began when a Pennsylvania trial judge issued an order barring press coverage and public access to preliminary hearings in a high-profile murder case due to concerns about ensuring fair trials for defendants amidst intense media scrutiny. This decision was challenged by several news organizations including Philadelphia Newspapers on First Amendment grounds arguing it violated their right to freedom of speech and press. The Supreme Court held that such restrictions constituted "final" actions which could be appealed immediately rather than waiting until after the conclusion of criminal proceedings as typically required by federal appellate procedure rules. The court reasoned that delaying review would effectively deny news outlets any meaningful opportunity to challenge these restrictions since they would become moot once proceedings concluded or if defendants were acquitted.

In the dissenting opinion for Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., et al. v. Jerome, Judge (1977), Justice Rehnquist expressed concern over the majority's decision to allow a newspaper to publish an article that could potentially interfere with ongoing court proceedings. He argued that this ruling was inconsistent with previous decisions made by the Supreme Court regarding freedom of speech and press in relation to judicial proceedings. Furthermore, he contended that it is essential for courts to have control over their own processes without interference from outside parties or influences in order to maintain public confidence in the justice system and ensure fair trials for all involved parties. Thus, he believed that restrictions on media coverage during ongoing legal cases were necessary and justified under certain circumstances.