New York Times v United States

New York Times v. United States 1971

New York Times v. United States was a Supreme Court case that was argued and decided in 1971. Let's frame the issue:

The preamble to the Constitution states that the United States has a responsibility to provide for the common defense. To achieve that goal, the government has claimed the right to keep some military information secret. This case deals with the First Amendment’s freedom of the press clause and what happens when issues regarding national security come into conflict with the freedom of the press.

Pentagon Papers

Throughout the 1960s and 70s, the United States was embroiled in the controversial Vietnam War. The war had grown increasingly unpopular because it had dragged on for a decade and there were many casualties. Many Americans doubted that the country’s involvement was justified. In 1967 Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense, ordered a secret history of the United States' activities in the area. Daniels Ellsberg, a military analyst, helped produce the secret report.

By 1971, Ellsberg had grown frustrated with the direction of the conflict and considered himself an anti-war activist. That year, Ellsberg unlawfully copied over 7,000 pages of classified documents kept at the RAND corporation's research facility where he was employed. He first leaked the papers to Neil Sheehan, a reporter at the New York Times, and later to the Washington Post.

These reports contained details about the Vietnam War and information regarding decisions made by United States officials. The papers became known as the “Pentagon Papers”

The Pentagon Papers consisted of communication, war strategy, and plans. Many of the documents revealed American incompetence and South Vietnamese deception.

Fig. 1, A CIA map of dissident activity in Indochina published as part of the Pentagon Papers, Wikipedia

New York Times v. United States Summary

The Espionage Act was passed during World War I, and it made it a crime to obtain information regarding national security and national defense with the intent to harm the United States or to aid a foreign country. During wartime, many Americans were charged with violating the Espionage Act for such crimes as spying or leaking information regarding military operations. Not only could you be punished for illegally obtaining sensitive information, but you could also suffer repercussions for receiving such information if you didn’t alert authorities.

Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to major publications such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. The newspapers knew that printing any of the information contained in the documents would risk violating the Espionage Act.

Fig. 2, Daniel Ellsberg at a press conference, Wikimedia Commons

The New York Times published two stories with information from the Pentagon Papers anyway, and President Richard Nixon ordered the attorney general to issue an injunction against the New York Times to stop printing anything in the Pentagon Papers. He claimed that the documents were stolen and that their publication would cause harm to the United States defense. The Times refused, and the government sued the newspaper. The New York Times claimed that their freedom to publish, protected by the First Amendment, would be violated by the injunction.

While a federal judge issued a restraining order for the Times to cease further publication, The Washington Post began to print portions of the Pentagon Papers. The government once again asked a federal court to stop a newspaper from printing the documents. The Washington Post also sued. The Supreme Court agreed to hear both cases and combined them into one case: New York Times v. United States.

The question that the court had to resolve was “Did the government’s efforts to prevent two newspapers from publishing leaked classified documents violate the First Amendment protection of freedom of the press?”

Arguments for the New York Times:

• The framers intended the freedom of the press clause in the First Amendment to protect the press so that they may fulfill an essential role in democracy.

• Citizens must have access to uncensored information in order for a healthy democracy

• The press serves the governed, not the government

• The newspapers did not print material to jeopardize the United States. They printed material to help the country.

• Prior restraint is anti-democratic, as is secrecy. Open debate is essential for our national well-being.

Arguments for the U.S. Government:

• During war, the executive branch’s authority must be expanded to restrict the printing of classified information that could damage national defense

• The newspapers were guilty of printing information that was stolen. They should have consulted the government before publication to come to an agreement about what materials were suitable for public access.

• Citizens have the duty to report the theft of government documents

• The judicial branch should not pass judgment on the executive branch’s assessment of what is in the interest of national defense.

New York Times v. United States Ruling

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled for the newspapers. They agreed that stopping publication would have been prior restraint.

Their decision was rooted in the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech clause, “Congress shall make no law……abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”

The Court also relied on the precedent of Near v. Minnesota.

The Court did not issue a typical majority opinion authored by a single justice. Instead, the Court offered a per curium opinion.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Hugo L. Black argued that,

In his dissent, Chief Justice Burger argued that the justices didn’t know the facts, that the case was rushed, and that,

New York Times v. United States Significance

What is most significant about New York Times v. United States is that the case defended the First Amendment’s freedom of the press against government prior restraint. It is held as a powerful example of a victory for freedom of the press in America.