New York Times v. United States (1971) Case Brief

New York Times v. United States (1971) Case Brief

I. Facts: The New York Times and the Washington Post “acquired” copies of a 7,000 page classified study – which became known as the “Pentagon Papers” – that had been prepared for the Department of Defense on the evolution of U.S. Vietnam policy. On Sunday, June 13, 1971, the Times published the first of these “Pentagon Papers” which was the first in a series of installments of the study that had been condensed by the Times into a smaller size. On June 15, the Nixon administration went into the U.S. District Court of Columbia, to obtain injunctions blocking further publication. On June 25, the Supreme Court granted expedited review, with oral arguments scheduled the next day. The Court rendered its decision four days later on June 30.

II. Law: The question presented before the court was whether or not the First Amendment right of “Freedom of Press” granted to the New York Times and the Washington Post was superseded by the National Government’s supposed need to maintain secrecy of information.

III. Decision/ Reasoning: The format of opinions was unusual; it was per curiam, with each justice delivering a separate opinion. (per curiam – of the court). The per curiam decision that the Supreme Court came to essentially levied the rights asserted in the First Amendment of “Freedom of Press” granted to the New York Times and the Washington Post versus the Executive branch’s supposed need to withhold information and maintain secrecy of information. The Court essentially asserted that any decision that sought to restrain expression is burdened with showing – what is arguably – excessive justification for the enforcement of such a restraint. The decision that the Court handed down was essentially that the Executive had not proved such justification and could therefore not warrant such a restraint on freedom of expression.

Justice Black and Justice Douglas with Justice Brennan concurring asserted that such a violation of a first amendment right by the Government was indefensible. They continued to state that the press (or media) must be given the ability to essentially vet the Government. They asserted that “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deceptions in the government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and of foreign shot and shell.”

Chief Justice Burger argued – offering a dissenting opinion to the per curiam Court ruling – that rights are not absolute. He cites John Holmes in his argument, stating that much like his assertion that people do not have the right to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre; he states that such exceptions may exist in this scenario that must be discussed. He also states that the New York Times did essentially steal this information from the government, which of in itself was an illegal action.

Justice Harlan, Chief Justice Burger, and Justice Blackmun also offered dissenting arguments that question the expedient with which the case was accomplished.

IV. Evaluation: I agree with the opinion of the Court in the decision. Although the Executive is endowed with certain responsibilities that involve national security which may require stringent security measures; the people of the United States are also endowed with the sovereignty to demand, or in this case receive information. The Constitution does not give the Executive the power to withhold information; if information is solicited or obtained, the people have a right to be informed of it.