NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. U.S.

No. 1873
June 30, 1971
Related constitutional provision: Art. III, Sec. 4 (Prior Restraint)

FACTS:
The “History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy”, otherwise known as The
Pentagon Papers, were illegally copied and leaked to the press. The New York Times obtained a copy of
the documents. The New York district court, pursuant to the request of the Government, issued a
temporary injunction directing The New York Times not to publish the documents. The Government, in
requesting the injunction, claimed that publication of the papers would be a threat to the national security.
The New York Times then appealed the order to the United States Supreme Court claiming that
prevention of the publication — prior restraint — is a violation of the freedom of the press embodied in
the First Amendment. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:
1. Whether prior restraint to publication by reason of national security is a violation of the First
Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press.

HELD:
1. Yes.
The Court cited a precedent saying, “Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this
Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Thus, the Government carries a
heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such restraint. The Government was not able
to meet such burden.
According to Justice Black, the guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of
informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. For him, the security of
the Republic lies in the preservation of the inviolable constitutional rights of free speech, free press, and
free assembly. By doing so, the Republic maintains the opportunity for free political discussion in order to
have a government that is responsive to the will of the people.
Other Justices concurred saying that under the constitutional system, extraordinary protection
against prior restraints is enjoyed by the press. The Government, in this case, was not able to overcome
such protection against prior restraint, such restraint therefore violative of the First Amendment.

Prepared by: Daniel John A. Fordan !1