Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

New York Times Co. v. United States

N.Y. Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1971-06-21
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that the Government had not met its “burden of showing justification” for a prior restraint on the publication of documents related to the Vietnam war
  • holding that asserted military interests could not justify prior restraint of the press
  • holding that a claim of potential harm to national security does not provide the executive branch with unconstrained authority to override the freedom of the press
  • holding that the Motion Picture Control Act was a prior restraint when the Board of Censors had to approve movies before screening
  • holding that government failed to show that publication of the Pentagon Papers will clearly result in direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to the nation
  • holding that notwithstanding the fact that a third party had stolen the information, the press had a constitutional right to publish the Pentagon Papers because they were of public concern
  • holding that the government had not met its burden of showing justification for imposition of a restraint on the publication of classified documents related to the Vietnam War
  • holding that “neither the CIA’s administrative determination nor any court order in this case constitutes a prior restraint in the traditional sense upon [the plaintiff] or any other party”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed New York Times Co. v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1160 opinions
*714 Pee Curiam.

We granted certiorari in- these cases in which the United Státes seeks to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post .'from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled “History of U. S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy.” Post, pp. 942, 943.

“Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 70 (1963); see also Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697 (1931). The Government “thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.” Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415, 419 (1971). The District Court for the Southern District of New York in the New York Times case and the District Court for' the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the Washington Post case held that the Government had not met that burden. We agree.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is therefore affirmed. The order of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to enter a judgment affirming the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The stays entered June 25, 1971, by the Court are vacated. The judgments shall issue forthwith.

So ordered.