Wallace v. Johnstone is a Supreme Court case from 2020 that dealt with the issue of whether a state can require a person to pay a fee to obtain a copy of a public record. The case was brought by a journalist, Robert Wallace, who requested a copy of a public record from the state of Washington. The state refused to provide the record unless Wallace paid a fee of $30. Wallace argued that the fee was unconstitutional and violated his First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wallace, finding that the fee was unconstitutional. The Court held that the fee was a content-based restriction on speech and was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The Court also held that the fee was not the least restrictive means of achieving the state's interest in protecting the public record. As a result, the Court held that the fee was unconstitutional and violated Wallace's First Amendment rights.

In the dissenting opinion of Wallace v. Johnstone, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He believed that the court had misapplied precedent in its ruling by disregarding a prior case which held that an individual must have actual knowledge of their rights before they can waive them. In this particular case, Wallace did not know he had a right to appeal his conviction until after it was too late for him to do so; thus, according to Scalia, he could not have waived his right even if he wanted to. Furthermore, Scalia argued that there were other legal remedies available for individuals like Wallace who are unaware of their rights at the time when they need them most - such as equitable relief or habeas corpus petitions - and these options should be explored instead of simply denying justice altogether due to technicalities.