New York Times Co. v. United States

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 403 U.S. 713, 29 L. Ed. 2d 822, 91 S. Ct. 2140, SCDB 1970-145, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 100

Decision Date: 6/30/1971

Docket Number: No. 1873

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 29 L. Ed. 2d 822, 91 S. Ct. 2140, SCDB 1970-145, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 100 (1971)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1971

NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES

Judges

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins,
with whom Me. Justice Black joins,
with whom Mr. Justice White joins,
with whom Mr. Justice Stewart joins,

Attorneys

Alexander M. Bickel argued the cause for petitioner in No.' 1873. With him on the brief were William E. Hegarty and Lawrence J. McKay..
Solicitor General Gnswold argued the cause for the United States in both cases. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Mardian and Daniel M. Friedman.
William R. Glendon argued the cause for respondents in No. 1885: With him on the brief were Roger A. Clark, Anthony F. Essaye, Leo P. Larkin, Jr., arid Stanley Godofsky.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Boh Eckhardt and Thomas I. Emerson for Twenty-Seyen Members of Congress; by Norman Dor sen, Melvin L. Wulf, Burt Neu-borne, Bruce J. Ennis, Osmond K. Fraenkel, and Marvin M. Karpatkin for the American Civil Liberties Union; and by Victor Rabinowitz for the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee.

majority Pee Curiam.

We granted certiorari in- these cases in which the United Státes seeks to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post .'from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled “History of U. S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy.” Post, pp. 942, 943.

“Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 70 (1963); see also Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697 (1931). The Government “thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.” Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415, 419 (1971). The District Court for the Southern District of New York in the New York Times case and the District Court for' the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the Washington Post case held that the Government had not met that burden. We agree.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is therefore affirmed. The order of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to enter a judgment affirming the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The stays entered June 25, 1971, by the Court are vacated. The judgments shall issue forthwith.

So ordered.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.