NY TIMES v. US
Year: 1971
Result: 6-3, favor NY Times
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 1st Amendment (Freedom of the Press)
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: Prior restraint is a violation of the 1st Amendment and is not justified unless the publication would lead to an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces. The publication of the classified "Pentagon Papers" was not serious enough threat to national security to be subject to Nixon's prior restraint.
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 dissent: The 1st Amendment does not grant "absolute" privilege of the press. The Court did not have enough time to make the right decision and publication of the Pentagon Papers may lead to actual casualties.
6-word summary: unconstitutional prior restraint on Pentagon Papers
Result: 6-3, favor NY Times
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 1st Amendment (Freedom of the Press)
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: Prior restraint is a violation of the 1st Amendment and is not justified unless the publication would lead to an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces. The publication of the classified "Pentagon Papers" was not serious enough threat to national security to be subject to Nixon's prior restraint.
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 dissent: The 1st Amendment does not grant "absolute" privilege of the press. The Court did not have enough time to make the right decision and publication of the Pentagon Papers may lead to actual casualties.
6-word summary: unconstitutional prior restraint on Pentagon Papers