New York Times v. United States Case Study

The background of this landmark constitutional law case begins in the 1960s. Many Americans were growing frustrated with the country's seemingly endless involvement in the Vietnam War.

Case Facts

In 1967, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered a top-secret study of the United States' involvement in Vietnam. This study came to be known as the Pentagon Papers. It covered the period from World War II to 1968 and revealed that several Democratic and Republican administrations misled the American public about the extent and nature of the United States' involvement in Vietnam.

In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who had worked on the study, leaked portions of the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. The Times began publishing articles based on the leaked documents on June 13, 1971.

After three articles were published, the Nixon administration demanded that the newspaper stop. It said publishing the sensitive material would cause irreparable harm to national security. When the Times refused, the U.S. government sued to stop publication.

Meanwhile, Ellsberg also gave copies of the Pentagon Papers to the Washington Post. When the Post began publishing articles based on the documents, the federal government tried to stop them as well.

Lower Court Decisions

The cases moved quickly through the court system.

On June 15, 1971, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a temporary restraining order against the Times, preventing further publication of the Pentagon Papers.

The case then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appellate court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

In the Washington Post case, the district court ordered the paper to stop publishing the material. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to stop the publication.

Because of the conflicting lower court rulings and the importance of the issue, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis. It held oral arguments just 11 days after the first article was published.

Supreme Court Decision

In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the newspapers, allowing them to continue publishing the Pentagon Papers. The decision was unusual in that it had a brief per curiam opinion, followed by a separate opinion from each justice.

The majority opinion said the government failed to meet the heavy burden required to justify prior restraint of the press. It emphasized two key points:

• Any system of prior restraints on expression comes to the Court with a strong presumption against its constitutional validity
• The government carries a heavy burden to justify imposing such a restraint

The majority concluded that the government hadn't met this burden in attempting to prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers.

Concurrences

Six justices wrote concurring opinions. Each of them agreed with the Court's overall decision but wrote separately to express their individual reasoning or to emphasize particular points.

Justice Hugo Black

Justice Black argued for an absolute interpretation of the First Amendment. He believed the press must be free to publish news without censorship, injunction, or prior restraint.

He said the government's power to censor the press was abolished to preserve the republic and protect the people's right to know.

Justice William O. Douglas

Douglas agreed with Black's absolutist view. He emphasized that the First Amendment leaves no room for governmental restraint on the press.

Douglas argued that the word "security" is a broad, vague generality and shouldn't be invoked to nullify the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.

Justice William Brennan

Brennan focused on the narrow issue of prior restraint. He argued that the First Amendment tolerates no prior judicial restraints on publication with a single, extremely narrow exception.

This exception only applies when the nation is at war, and the publication will cause inevitable, direct, and immediate danger to troops or similar imperative of security.

Justice Potter Stewart

Stewart emphasized the executive branch's power in foreign affairs and national defense. However, he argued that the executive is subject to the law and Constitution.

He concluded that the government didn't meet the heavy burden of justification for prior restraint, as it failed to show that publication would cause direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to the nation.

Justice Byron White

White expressed concern about the consequences of publication but believed the government hadn't met the heavy burden required for prior restraint.

He noted that Congress didn't make it a crime to publish this material and suggested that post-publication prosecution might be possible if laws were violated.

Justice Thurgood Marshall

Marshall focused on the separation of powers. He argued that the Court lacked the authority to provide the remedy the government sought.

He said that Congress hadn't passed any law giving courts the power to prohibit publication in cases like this, despite having the opportunity to do so.

Dissents

Three Justices disagreed with the majority opinion and wrote dissenting opinions. They primarily criticized the speed of the decision-making process and the potential risks to national security, arguing for more time and deference to executive authority in such matters.

Chief Justice Warren Burger

Chief Justice Burger argued that proper judicial consideration was impossible in such a short timeframe. He stressed the importance of careful, deliberate judicial review, especially in cases involving national security.

Burger suggested that the Court should have taken more time to fully examine the issues at hand.

Justice John Marshall Harlan

Harlan focused on the separation of powers and the role of the judiciary. He favored more Court deference to the executive branch in matters of foreign affairs and national security.

Harlan believed the Court lacked the expertise to properly evaluate the potential harm of publication to national interests.

Justice Harry Blackmun

Blackmun echoed concerns about the rushed nature of the decision. He cautioned against potential:

• Damage to national interests
• Troop endangerment

He offered a compromise, proposing a brief delay in publication to allow for a more thorough examination of the issues and potential consequences.

The large number of separate Justice opinions reflects the complexity and importance of the issues involved in the case, as well as the different legal rationales the Justices used to reach their conclusions.

Previous Cases

Several justices discussed two of the Court's earlier First Amendment cases.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Schenck primarily dealt with limits on the freedom of speech during wartime. Charles Schenck had distributed leaflets opposing the draft during World War I. He was charged with violations of the Espionage Act of 1917.

The High Court upheld Schenck's conviction (and the law), finding that free speech could be limited if it created a "clear and present danger."

Some New York Times justices referenced this standard or similar concepts. But none of them used it as the sole or primary basis for their opinion. Most suggested that an even stricter standard should apply in cases of prior restraint on the press.

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

The Near decision is a landmark case in the development of prior restraint doctrine.

It was the first time the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that a law authorizing prior restraint on publication was unconstitutional. The case established the heavy presumption against prior restraint.

Several Justices noted these principles in their New York Times opinions. Many argued for an even stricter standard in this case due to the national security implications.

While the New York Times decision moved away from Schenck's more restrictive approach to free speech, it built upon Near's strong presumption against prior restraint.

Impact of New York Times v. United States

The ruling had immediate practical effects. The New York Times and Washington Post resumed publishing articles based on the Pentagon Papers, and other newspapers began publishing them as well. This increased public awareness about the realities of the Vietnam War and likely contributed to growing anti-war sentiment.

In the longer term, the decision strongly affirmed the freedom of the press. It empowered the public and press to challenge government actions, a key component of protecting civil rights.

Significance

New York Times Co. v. United States is widely regarded as a press freedom victory. It reinforced the principle that the government bears a heavy burden in justifying any prior restraint on publication.

The case reminds us that a free press plays a fundamental role in democracy by informing the public and holding the government accountable. It's had a lasting impact on discussions about classified information, national security, and press freedom.

However, it didn't settle all questions on the matter. The Court left open the possibility that prior restraint might be justified in extreme circumstances. Later cases grappled with balancing national security concerns and freedom of the press, a debate that continues to this day.