<P> Regarding Near and Guilford's defense of freedom of the press under article 1, section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution, the State Supreme Court did not believe that the right was intended to protect the publishing of "scandalous material", but that it only provided "a shield for the honest, careful and conscientious press," not the "defamer and the scandalmonger ." Instead, "he who uses the press is responsible for its abuse ." The court also ruled that the state constitution's due process clause did not extend any additional protection . </P> <P> The case then returned to the Hennepin County District Court, and Near and Guilford renewed their objection to the constitutionality of the Public Nuisance Law . Judge Baldwin again overruled their objection . Only the verified complaint that Olson had filed and the newspaper issues themselves were entered as evidence, and the defendants did not try to argue that the Saturday Press did not fit the definition under the statute, or that their published stories were in fact true . Baldwin ruled that the newspapers contained nothing but scandalous and defamatory material, and permanently enjoined the defendants "from producing, editing, publishing, circulating, having in their possession, selling or giving away any publication whatsoever which is a malicious, scandalous or defamatory newspaper, as defined by law," and also "from further conducting said nuisance under the name and title of said' The Saturday Press or any other name or title ." </P> <P> On appeal once again, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that its first decision left little question as to the constitutionality of the statute, both under the defendants' state constitutional challenge and a new argument based on due process under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution . The defendants also argued that the trial court's injunction went too far because it effectively prevented them from operating any newspaper, but their appeal did not request a modification of the order . The court in any case disagreed with their interpretation of the order's scope, stating that it did allow them to publish a newspaper, so long as it was operated "in harmony with the public welfare ." </P> <P> Only Near appealed from this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, thanks to last - minute financial help from Col. Robert R. McCormick, the legendary publisher of the Chicago Tribune . This time, the Court, by a narrow 5 - 4 margin reversed the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court and ruled that the Public Nuisance Law of 1925 was unconstitutional . The reversal was based largely on changes to the makeup of the Supreme Court between the two arguments . A quotation from the decision written by Hughes is engraved in the lobby of the Tribune today . </P>

Near v. minnesota was a landmark first amendment decision affirming