PHILADELPHIA NEWSPAPERS, INC. v. HEPPS

Legal Principle at Issue

Does the First Amendment require a private individual suing a newspaper for defamation involving a matter of public concern to prove that the allegedly defamatory statements are false, or can the law place the burden on the newspaper to prove that its statements are true?

Action

Reversed and remanded. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

Appellee Maurice Hepps was the principal stockholder of appellee corporation that franchises a chain of stores selling beer, soft drinks, and snacks. Appellant owner published a series of articles in its Philadelphia newspaper whose general theme was that Hepps, the franchisor corporation, and its franchisees (also appellees) had links to organized crime and used some of those links to influence the state's governmental processes. 

Appellees then brought a defamation suit in a Pennsylvania state court against the newspaper owner and the authors (also appellants) of the articles in question. Concluding that the Pennsylvania statute giving the defendant the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements violated the Federal Constitution, the trial court instructed the jury that the plaintiff bore the burden of proving falsity. The jury ruled for appellants, and therefore awarded no damages to appellees. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, concluding that a showing of fault did not require a showing of falsity, held that to place the burden of showing truth on the defendant did not unconstitutionally inhibit free debate, and remanded the case for a new trial.