new york times v. united states
Case name: New York Times Co. v. United States
Year decided: 1971
Result: 6-3, in favor of the New York Times
Related constitutional issue/amendment: First Amendment (freedom of press)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled that the United States failed to properly justify prior restraint and therefore could not censor the New York Times's printing of the Pentagon Papers. The vague term "national security" was not enough to legitimize prior restraint. One of the functions of a free press is to act as a check on the government and prior restraint by the government would compromise the effectiveness of that check.
Quote from majority opinion: "The word "security" is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged."
Summary of the dissent: There was not enough information provided to make a fair and just decision. The haste of the proceedings did not allow for enough time and consideration of the materials and issues. Also, the New York Times should have allowed the government to review the materials and discuss a compromise so that there is not as much disagreement between the New York Times and the government.
Six-word summary: Prior restraint restrained, Pentagon Papers published.
Year decided: 1971
Result: 6-3, in favor of the New York Times
Related constitutional issue/amendment: First Amendment (freedom of press)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled that the United States failed to properly justify prior restraint and therefore could not censor the New York Times's printing of the Pentagon Papers. The vague term "national security" was not enough to legitimize prior restraint. One of the functions of a free press is to act as a check on the government and prior restraint by the government would compromise the effectiveness of that check.
Quote from majority opinion: "The word "security" is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged."
Summary of the dissent: There was not enough information provided to make a fair and just decision. The haste of the proceedings did not allow for enough time and consideration of the materials and issues. Also, the New York Times should have allowed the government to review the materials and discuss a compromise so that there is not as much disagreement between the New York Times and the government.
Six-word summary: Prior restraint restrained, Pentagon Papers published.