In a defamation case, where a jury finds that media defendants' reporting on what law enforcement said in a news release and news conference was substantially accurate and thus not false, does the First Amendment permit a state court to require the jury to consider whether such reports met the fair-report-privilege's requirements, thereby displacing the falsity-element-of-defamation?

QUESTION PRESENTED “(Where a newspaper publishes speech of public concern, a private-figure plaintiff cannot recover damages without also showing that the statements at issue are false.” Phila. Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 768-69 (1986). And generally, “ifa newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance then state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of the information. . . .” Smith v. Daily Mail Publ’g Co., 443 U.S. 97, 102 (1979). Here, Plaintiff claimed news media defendants defamed him by falsely reporting on what law enforcement said in an official news conference and news release regarding Plaintiff’s arrest for a police officer’s murder (Plaintiff was later exonerated). A jury found that Defendants’ reporting on what police said was true. But the Minnesota Supreme Court nonetheless ordered a new trial for the jury to instead consider the statements under the “fair report privilege,” thereby subjecting Defendants to potential liability for reporting already found to be truthful. The question presented is: In a defamation case, where a jury finds that media defendants’ reporting on what law enforcement said in a news release and news conference was substantially accurate and thus not false, does the First Amendment permit a state court to require the jury to consider whether such reports met the fair report privilege’s requirements, thereby displacing the falsity element of defamation?