Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc v. Hepps
1986 U.S. Lexis 97
Lauren Hall
VOTE: 5-4
Opinions: Justice O’Connor wrote the majority opinion; Justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackmum,
and Powell joined the opinion; Justices Stevens, Burger, White, and Rehnquist dissented on the
opinion.
Facts: Maurice S. Hepps was the principle stockholder of the General Programming, Inc.
Corporation. This corporation owned a franchised chain store, known as “Thrifty” stores.
William Ecenbarger and William Lambert of the Philadelphia Inquirer, owned by
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., authored a series of articles claiming that Maurice S. Hepps, his
corporation, and his franchises were linked to organized crime and Mafia figures and used such
links in order to influence the legislative and administrative branches of the state’s government.
The Philadelphia Inquirer then published these articles.
Hepps brought suit against Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. in a Pennsylvania state court.
The trial court held that a Pennsylvania statue that placed a burden of proving the truth on the
defendant in a defamation case violated the Federal Constitution. The judge then imposed the
burden of proving falsity on the plaintiff. The jury’s verdict was in favor of the defendants. The
plaintiffs then appealed the case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which ruled that placing the
burden of proving the truth on the defendants did not violate the Federal Constitution and also
remanded the case for a new trial.
Decision: The case was reversed and remanded. After hearing the case, the United States
Supreme Court held that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the statements are false in a
defamation case in which the plaintiff is seeking to recover damages.
Rationale: The United States Supreme Court referred back to Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. in
which the Court held that a private figure bringing a suit for defamation must show that the
media defendant was at fault before receiving damages.
In the case at hand, the truthfulness or falsity of the speech is hard to determine using the
fact-finding process. The Court states that in such a case in which this is so uncertain and the
matter is of public concern they must rule more in favor of protecting free speech. It was also
stated that in order to protect free speech that matters, the First Amendment requires that the
Court protect some falsehood. Doing so provides ample room for speech that is true and of the
public’s concern. According to the Court, the speech in question did matter since it dealt with
the legitimacy of the political process.
Importance: Hepps was a private figure and the newspaper articles were of public concern. In
this case, the United States Supreme Court held that the common-law rule that the defendant
must bear the burden of proving the truth is overruled by a constitutional rule; that is, in order to
recover damages, the plaintiff must bear the burden of proving falsity. This allows for increased
freedom of the press since the Court declared that it is required to rule more in favor of free
speech when dealing with matters of public concern or matters in which the truthfulness or
falsity of the speech is hard to determine.