Case Digest: New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

 

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

 

Initial background.

1. 1967 - Robert Mcnamara (then-secretary of defense) commissioned a secret government study on American involvement in Vietnam.
2. The “classified” project has 47 volumes containing more than 7,000 pages.
3. 1971 - Daniel Ellsberg secretly made 15 copies of the documents and passed them onto NYT.
4. June 13, 1971 - The Times published “Pentagon Papers”
5. After three installments, Nixon ordered restraining order, barring the papers’ further publication
6. Second circuit COA affirmed order.
7. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (June 26).
8. Court issued opinions on June 30. Entire legal process took 15 days.

 

Facts.

1. The US government sought an injunction against the publication by the NY Times over the contents of a classified study (what) entitled History of US Decision-Making Process on Vietnam Policy.
2. Washington Post, too, began publishing material from the study and accordingly, the government sought a similar injunction against it in the district of Columbia.
3. US wants to enjoin NYT for publishing confidential story. (what)
4. However, the district courts ruled that the US was not able to justify the restraint. (what)
5. Each district court denied the injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the judgment of the District Court of Columbia, but the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remanded (sent it back) the case to the district court for the Southern District of N.Y. for further hearings.

 

Issues.

1. Whether or not was the government able to justify the need for prior restraint (judicial suppression of material that would be published or broadcast)?
2. Did the US meet the heavy burden to justify prior restraint on expression?

 

Held. No

Why?

1.  1^ST AMENDMENT > PRES – First amendment precedes “inherent power” of Pres to halt publication. It did not authorize the government to stop publication of the documents. 

2.  1^ST AMENDMENT  > RESTRAINT – First amendment leaves no room for govt restraint on the press

3.  NO LAW – No statute barring that specific material to be published. There was no statute that gave the government the power to ask the Court to stop the publication of materials.

4.  PROOF – No prior judicial restraints unless the government provides proof that severe consequences may happen.

5.  DAMAGE – Docs WILL NOT cause irreparable danger to the public.

The case was ambiguous. A separate opinion by the members of the Court and while they all agreed that prior restraints are difficult to obtain, the vote on the case was 6-3 in favor of The Times.

Dissent.

The court has not read all 7000 pages of the Pentagon Papers.

Ruling was that the government, even during a war, even though there were American prisoners held by the enemy during that war, have not shown that publication of a historical study would do terrible harm.

The case came up very quickly, and was not deeply enmeshed.

The United States, which brought these actions to enjoin publication in the New York Times and in the Washington Post of certain classified material, has not met the "heavy burden of showing justification for the enforcement of such a [prior] restraint."

 

In its per curiam opinion the Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case. Justices Black and Douglas argued that the vague word "security" should not be used "to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment." Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified.

 

Conclusion. The Court held that the government did not meet the burden of sharing justification for the imposition of a prior restraint of expression.

Furthermore, it stated that under the First Amendment, the press must be left free to publish news without censorship.