The Supreme Court decided on a 6–3 vote that a prior restraint could not be imposed on publication of the Pentagon Papers. In addition, further publication of the Pentagon Papers by newspapers around the country did not attract a great deal of attention or significantly affect the United States' policy on Vietnam. from publishing articles based on the Pentagon Papers, a leaked classified report on the U.S. role in Indochina, under Section 793 of the Espionage Act. Chief Justice WARREN E. BURGER, Justices JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN, and HARRY A. BLACK-MUN dissented, all strongly objecting to the "unseemly haste" with which the courts heard and decided the case. The articles were based on a 47-volume DEFENSE DEPARTMENT study covering the years 1945 to 1968, which had been leaked to the Times by Daniel Ellsberg, a former Defense Department analyst. The rights protected in First Amendment triumph over the government’s interest in security or civil obedience. For the first time in the nation's history, the government had succeeded, if only during the appeals of the case, in precluding the press from publishing news in its possession. The case is of great significance, however, as a statement that a prior restraint on the FREEDOM OF SPEECH is almost never justified. The Supreme Court of the United States expanded freedom of expression in this case by placing a heavy burden on the U.S. government to justify its desired censorship of the press.

Expands Expression. Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source. 1357 (1931), which held that under the First Amendment, prior restraints on free speech are justified only in "exceptional cases," such as when the information to be published would include "the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops.". Affirming the no-prior-restraint doctrine in the Pentagon Papers case B. Upholding the government's right to control what information the public could have about Vietnam The Times and the Post claimed that the government was engaging in CENSORSHIP. The dissenting justices thus believed that the publication of the Pentagon Papers should have been enjoined until the courts had adequate time to evaluate carefully the legal issues and the impact of publication of the documents on the interests of the United States. Justice Brennan differed in his concurrence, stating while the First Amendment acts as an absolute bar in the present case, this may not be the case for a temporary prevention of publishing information in the interest of national security, or if one of the exceptions established in Near v. Minnesota applies. Less than two weeks after the Times published its first articles, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the cases, and five days later, on June 30, 1971, issued its decision. In concurring opinions Justices HUGO L. BLACK and WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS both stated, in very strong language, that prior restraints on the freedom of expression are never justified, no matter what the circumstances. In his concurrence, Justice Douglas noted that secrecy in government is undemocratic, as is the government’s attempt to kept relevant information out of the public debate surrounding the Vietnam War. The other four justices who concurred in the judgment, Justices WILLIAM J. BRENNAN JR., POTTER STEWART, BYRON R. WHITE, and THUR-GOOD MARSHALL, each believed that the government could impose a prior restraint in certain extraordinary circumstances, such as where the publication of information could endanger U.S. soldiers, but that those circumstances were not present in the Pentagon Papers case. The United States contended that publication of the Pentagon Papers could prolong the Vietnam War and hinder efforts to return U.S. prisoners held in Vietnam. The Supreme Court heard arguments from the Executive Branch, the Times, the Post, and the Justice Department on June 25 and 26, 1971.

Most notably, Justice Black in his concurrence argued that the First Amendment protection of the freedom of the press is an essential function of U.S. democracy. Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision. New York Times v. United States, The Oyez Pro

New York Times v. United States involved the first type of prior restraint, since the government sought a court injunction prohibiting the newspapers from publishing portions of the Pentagon Papers. Although the study contained only information regarding events that occurred before 1968, the government contended that the study contained "secret" and "top secret" information. Therefore, the New York Times and the Washington Post were protected by the First Amendment and were allowed to publish the contents of the classified study. 2d 822 (1971), often referred to as the Pentagon Papers case, concerned the government's attempt to prohibit the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing portions of a secret government study on the VIETNAM WAR. The country would be none the worse off were the cases tried quickly to be sure, but in the customary and properly deliberative manner.

The decision was hailed as a great victory for advocates of FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. The Court could not agree on a precise standard for determining when the government may impose a prior restraint on free speech or even whether the government could ever impose a prior restraint. The actions against the Times and the Post were rushed through the courts because of the unique national importance of the issues and the widespread national public attention the cases were receiving. The U.S. government sought to prevent the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing articles based on the Pentagon Papers, a leaked classified report on the U.S. role in Indochina, under Section 793 of the Espionage Act. Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy: Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page. and its Licensors At least in the circumstances presented by the case, however, the Supreme Court held that such a prior restraint on freedom of speech violates the First Amendment. 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. Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions. Other than the Pentagon Papers case, the most important Supreme Court case discussing prior restraints is NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. Affirming the no-prior-restraint doctrine in the Pentagon Papers case. The Court established that the government must prove that publication would result in “grave and irreparable” danger to justify prior restraint and had failed to do so in this case; it did not, however, rule that the Section or Act cited by the government was unconstitutional. Stewart was the only justice who offered a standard for determining when a prior restraint could be imposed, stating that a prior restraint would be appropriate only where publication "will surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people." The decision by the New York Times and Washington Post to print illegally leaked, classified documents about American involvement in the Vietnam War sparked a First Amendment battle between the highest levels of government and two of the most respected newspapers in the country.. Resources. In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in certain cases the government could not prevent newspapers from publishing certain classified content. Content Regulation / Censorship, National Security, Public Order, Content Regulation / Censorship, Hate Speech, National Security, Public Order, Content Regulation / Censorship, Hate Speech, National Security, Content Regulation / Censorship, National Security, Defamation / Reputation, Violence against Speakers / Impunity, Columbia University in the City of New York, On a Precipice: Turkey ‘s Unraveling Rule of Law, 2018 Justice for Free Expression Conference, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Manubhai, Midi Television Ltd. v Director of Public Prosecutions (Western Cape). The newspapers never did publish the portions of the Pentagon Papers that the government claimed were the most sensitive. Blackmun commented: [T]his, in my opinion, is not the way to try a lawsuit of this magnitude and asserted importance. In a brief opinion the whole Court noted that the government "carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint" and stated that the government had failed to meet that burden. Furthermore, the U.S. Attorney General argued that national security triumphed over the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections on both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The Pentagon Papers case remains, however, an important precedent in support of freedom of the press under the First Amendment. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy.” In order to prevent the newspapers from publishing, the U.S. Attorney General filed a case requesting injunctive relief, arguing that disclosure of the classified materials would endanger national security. Soon after, the Washington Post began publishing material from the study; accordingly, the government sought a similar injunction against the Post in the District of Columbia. The case of New York Times v. United States was responsible for which of the following? The First Amendment states that no federal law can b… A "prior restraint" is the imposition of a restraint on the publication of information before the information is published. Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case. The documents in the study became known as the Pentagon Papers. Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States establish binding precedent for all lower courts. White, while agreeing that the circumstances did not warrant a prior restraint on the publication of the Pentagon Papers, opined that the newspapers might be criminally liable under ESPIONAGE laws if they published sensitive national secrets.

asked Apr 17, 2019 in Political Science by Trish31.

From June 12 to 14, 1971, the New York Times published a series of articles about the origins of the Vietnam War. Black and Douglas both believed that "every moment's CONTINUANCE of the injunctions … amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment.". The case drew significant national attention as it went through the judicial system and the public wondered what the Pentagon Papers contained.