New York Times v. United States
FACTS
The US government sought injunctions against a publication by the New York Times that contained classified
information regarding military events that had already occurred, called "History of U. S. Decision-Making Process
on Viet Nam Policy” as well as a publication from the Washington Post. The US government argued that the
publications contained information that would jeopardize national security, necessitating prior restraint.
PROCEDURE
Both District Courts denied injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the judgment
of the District Court for the District of Columbia, but the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sent the case to
the District Court for the Southern District of New York for additional hearings. The case achieved certiorari and
was brought to the Supreme Court of the United States.
ISSUE
Was the government able to justify the need for prior restraint against the New York Times in order to protect the security
of the US given the weight of the First Amendment right to freedom of the press?
HOLDING
The New York Times prevailed with Justice Brennon presenting the majority decision. There was no threat directly posed
to the US by releasing information about what had already happened, so it was not a national security threat as the US
argued and therefore did not meet the heavy presumption against restricting freedom of the press. Prior restraint without an
immediate national security threat would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Justices Burger, Blackmun, and
Harlan II each filed separate dissenting opinions that stated that the case had been decided too quickly for all of the issues
to be considered and resolved.
RATIONALE
The US Supreme Court held that a party seeking a system of prior restraints on freedom of expression must
meet the heavy burden of justifying its use against the presumption of constitutional validity freedom of
expression enjoys under the First Amendment.