In the case of Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia in 1979, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that criminal trials must be open to the public and press unless a specific and substantial reason can justify their closure. The court held that this right was implicit within the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and press as well as within common law tradition. This decision came after two reporters from Richmond Newspapers were barred from attending a murder trial in Virginia which had been closed by a judge without explanation or inquiry into alternatives less drastic than closure. The ruling emphasized that openness enhances both truth-finding function of proceedings and public perception of fairness, thereby contributing to respect for law.

In the dissenting opinion for Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia et al., Justice Stevens argued that while he agreed with the majority's decision to reverse the closure of a criminal trial to public and press, he disagreed with their reasoning behind it. He criticized their reliance on historical evidence as an insufficient basis for determining constitutional rights in modern society. Instead, he believed that this case should have been decided based on First Amendment principles which protect freedom of speech and press rather than focusing on whether or not there is a right to attend trials under common law history or Sixth Amendment jurisprudence.