In the 1985 case of Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California for the County of Riverside, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Press-Enterprise Co., establishing that jury selection proceedings (also known as voir dire) should be open to public scrutiny unless there is a compelling interest against it. The case arose when a California court closed its jury selection process during a high-profile murder trial and denied access to transcripts after proceedings concluded, citing concerns about potential juror bias from media coverage. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court held that this violated both First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press and Sixth Amendment rights guaranteeing an accused person's right to a public trial by an impartial jury. The decision emphasized transparency in legal processes as crucial for maintaining public trust in justice systems.

In the dissenting opinion for Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the majority's decision to require public access to preliminary hearings in criminal cases was an overreach and a misinterpretation of the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a public trial. He contended that this amendment should not be extended to cover pretrial proceedings because they are fundamentally different from trials themselves; their purpose is not to determine guilt or innocence but rather whether there is enough evidence for a case to proceed at all. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on defendants' rights, particularly regarding prejudicial publicity which could undermine fair trials and due process rights. In his view, judges should have discretion in managing these risks by closing certain proceedings when necessary.