 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SYLLABUS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
UNITED STATES COURT YORK TIMES CERTIORARI APPEALS CIRCUIT WASHINGTON POST WILLIAM CIVIL LIBERTIES NBSP AMICI CURIAE BOB ECKHARDT THOMAS EMERSON MEMBERS CONGRESS MELVIN WULF BURT NEUBORNE BRUCE ENNIS OSMOND FRAENKEL MARVIN KARPATKIN AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION VICTOR RABINOWITZ NATIONAL EMERGENCY CIVIL CIVIL LIBERTIES COMMITTEE |
U U.S. Supreme Court NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) 403 U.S. 713 NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 1873. Argued June 26, 1971 Decided June 30, 1971 Together with No. 1885, United States v. Washington Post Co. et al., on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The United States, which brought these actions to enjoin publication in the New York Times and in the Washington Post of certain classified material, has not met the "heavy burden of showing justification for the enforcement of such a [prior] restraint." No. 1873, 444 F.2d 544, reversed and remanded; No. 1885, ___ U.S. App. D.C. ___, 446 F.2d 1327, affirmed. 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 Griswold 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., and Stanley Godofsky. Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Bob Eckhardt and Thomas I. Emerson for Twenty-Seven Members of Congress; by Norman Dorsen, Melvin L. Wulf, Burt Neuborne, Bruce J. Ennis, Osmond K. Fraenkel, and Marvin M. Karpatkin for the American Civil Liberties Union; and by Victor Rabinowitz for the NationalSNIPPETS: |
|
2
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
UNITED STATES COURT CONSTITUTION RESTRAINTS POWER CONGRESS YORK TIMES FIRST AMENDMENT NBSP NATIONAL DEFENSE APPEALS PRIOR RESTRAINTS PUBLICATION WASHINGTON POST PUBLISHING SECOND CIRCUIT COMMUNICATION EXECUTIVE BRANCH MATERIALS NEWSPAPERS PRESIDENT MINNESOTA FOREIGN NATION HEAVY PRESUMPTION INFORMATION RELATING INJUNCTION DISTRICT COURT UNAUTHORIZED POSSESSION DISCLOSURE |
U U.S. Supreme Court NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) 403 U.S. 713 NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 1873. Argued June 26, 1971 Decided June 30, 1971 PER CURIAM. We granted certiorari in these cases in which the United States 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.SNIPPETS: |
|
3
.
DISSENTING
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
UNITED STATES APPEALS JUSTICE CONSTITUTION PRIOR RESTRAINTS PUBLICATION SECOND CIRCUIT YORK TIMES DISSENTING NBSP GOVERNMENT DISTRICT COURT CERTIORARI CHIEF JUSTICE MINNESOTA MATERIALS FIRST AMENDMENT NEWSPAPERS JUDGEMENT NATIONAL SECURITY LITIGATION PRESSURE IMMEDIATE COLUMBIA CIRCUIT FOREIGN AFFAIRS CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS OCCASION NEWS REPORTING BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE |
U U.S. Supreme Court NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) 403 U.S. 713 NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 1873. Argued June 26, 1971 Decided June 30, 1971 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, dissenting. So clear are the constitutional limitations on prior restraint against expression, that from the time of Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), until recently in Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971), we have had little occasion to be concerned with cases involving prior restraints against news reporting on matters of public interest. There is, therefore, little variation among the members of the Court in terms of resistance to prior restraints against publication. Adherence to this basic constitutional principle, however, does not make these cases simple. In these cases, the imperative of a free and unfettered press comes into collision with another imperative, the effective functioning of a complex modern government and specifically the effective exercise of certain constitutional powers of the Executive. Only those who view the First Amendment as an absolute in all circumstances - a view I respect, but reject - can find such cases as these to be simple or easy. These cases are not simple for another and more immediate reason. We do not know the facts of the cases. No District Judge knew all the facts. No Court of Appeals judge knew all the facts. No member of this Court knows all the facts. Why are we in this posture, in which only those judges to whom the First Amendment is absolute and permits of no restraint in any circumstances or for any reason, are really in a position to act? I suggest we are in this posture because these cases have been conducted inSNIPPETS: |
|
|
| | | |
|
|
