Final answer:
The U.S. Supreme Court has historically favored the rights of free press when balancing against the need for a fair trial, as reflected in landmark cases such as Near v. Minnesota and the Pentagon Papers case.
Step-by-step explanation:
When balancing the rights of free press and guaranteeing a fair trial, the U.S. Supreme Court has tended to lean heavily in favor of free press. This is evident in the historical court decisions that have shaped the right to free expression. Notable cases include Near v. Minnesota, where the Supreme Court set a precedent against prior restraint, and the famous Pentagon Papers case, which underscored the right of the press to print information of significant public interest despite government objections on grounds of national security. While the government can impose prior restraint to some extent, this power is very limited and the Supreme Court requires an overriding public interest to justify such measures.
The Supreme Court values the First Amendment rights, including freedom of the press, so highly that it requires a "compelling state interest" for these rights to be constitutionally limited. The balance tends to favor individual freedoms, including the liberty of the press, unless an overwhelming public interest is at stake, such as national security.