Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

New York Times Co. v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1971 · Constitutional Law

First Amendmentprior restraintfree pressnational securityFirst Amendmentprior restraintinjunctionpress

Facts

The Government sought to enjoin newspaper publication of documents it claimed were highly sensitive and would cause substantial damage to public interests and national security. Publication had already begun, a substantial part of the threatened damage had already occurred, and the materials remained sealed in court records and were not discussed publicly in the opinions. The Government argued that the President's responsibility for foreign affairs and national security entitled him to an injunction whenever he could show threatened "grave and irreparable" injury, regardless of classification status, criminal statutes, or how the newspapers obtained the information. The requested injunction was not based on any express statutory authorization for such a prior restraint.

Issue

Whether, without express and appropriately limited congressional authorization, the Executive and the courts may enjoin newspapers from publishing government information on the theory that publication threatens grave and irreparable injury to the public interest and national security. More specifically, whether the Government met the very heavy burden necessary to justify a prior restraint in these cases.

Rule

Because the press enjoys extraordinary constitutional protection against prior restraints, the Government must satisfy a very heavy burden to obtain an injunction against publication. At least absent express and appropriately limited congressional authorization, the inherent powers of the Executive and the courts do not justify a sweeping prior-restraint remedy based solely on a generalized claim of "grave and irreparable" danger. Failure to justify a prior restraint does not determine whether criminal punishment for publication may later be constitutionally imposed under applicable statutes.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Washington, D.C., the President asks a federal court to enjoin the Capitol Ledger from publishing leaked internal defense assessments. The government relies only on the President's inherent responsibility for foreign affairs and national security, and submits sealed affidavits asserting that publication would cause grave and irreparable harm. No statute expressly authorizes an injunction against publication.

Under the majority opinion's reasoning, should the injunction issue?

Explanation. The opinion treats prior restraints on the press as subject to extraordinary constitutional protection and requires the government to carry a very heavy burden. Justice White rejected the claim that inherent executive and judicial power alone permits injunctions whenever the President shows threatened grave and irreparable injury. He specifically left open the possibility that injunctions might be permissible in some circumstances, so the rule is not that they are never allowed. The decisive point is the absence of express and appropriately limited congressional authorization and the insufficiency of the government's sweeping theory.