One of the many controversial Supreme Court cases of the twentieth century was that of the New York Times Company versus the United States. This 1971 case, commonly referred to as the “Pentagon Papers” case, challenged the boundaries of the First Amendment as well as the role of censorship.
The premise of the case dealt with certain confidential reports concerning the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The already controversial Vietnam War provided the impetus for this particular case. However, the case had little to do with the war. In 1967, the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, ordered an in-depth evaluation of the war. After more than a year, a several thousand-page report was compiled. These papers were referred to as the “Pentagon Papers.” The problem began when Daniel Ellsberg, a former Defense Department economist, who was strongly against the war, began copying pages from this extensive report and releasing them to the press. In June of 1971, TheNew York Times began publishing the papers. Consequently, the Nixon administration sought to divert such publications. This was not the only case of its kind. The Department of Justice immediately filed an injunction against The New York Times. Several other newspapers were involved, including The Washington Post, and the Boston Globe. At first, the United States government secured a temporary court order to suspend the publication. However, this decision was soon overturned when The New York Times challenged the U.S. government in court.
Ellsberg and The New York Times asserted that they had the right to inform the people of the government’s activities. However, the United States government argued that there are certain things that should be kept secret. Obviously, this conflicted with the First Amendment, that is, freedom of the press. The real question at hand was did the government have the right to censor and prevent a newspaper from publishing confidential documents? Also, does the executive branch have proof to convince the Supreme Court to suspend the publication of the Pentagon Papers while disregarding the First Amendment? The arguments for both sides centered on the constitutionality of censorship. The plaintiff for The New York Times argued that the concept of democracy is based heavily on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. To limit such freedoms would be anti-democratic. The United States government, on the other hand, argued that at times it is necessary to keep documents from the public. Furthermore, the U.S. government contended that they had a right to prevent the publication of the papers because they were surreptitiously released to press. The Defense Department also claimed that it was necessary to withhold certain information regarding the location and number of troops in Vietnam. Both sides had fairly strong arguments; however it only took a few days for the Court to reveal its verdict.
All of the Supreme Court justices were unanimous in making their decision. They ruled in favor of The New York Times solely on the basis of the First Amendment. Although there was some division among the justices, ultimately it was evident that the First Amendment was at stake. They could not allow the government to prevent or inhibit the freedom of the press in any way, shape, or form. The justices rejected the previous injunction and reaffirmed the unconstitutionality of censorship. Furthermore, the justices contended that freedom of the press is in the hands of the people, not the government. Therefore, the press has the ability, or the responsibility to use discretion on what and what not to publish. With regards to the defense, the justices deemed the U.S. did not have enough evidence to prove that national security was at risk for the publication of the copied documents. Although it was a highly divisive case, ultimately there was no question that the First Amendment was more important than any other issue.
After finishing the research for this case, I was not surprised in any way. Having initially read the synopsis of the case, I already knew what the decision would be. I had no doubt that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of The New York Times. I was surprised to note that the decision took four days. Usually more time is needed to efficiently deliberate on both sides. Nevertheless, I completely agree with the Court’s decision. This case clearly challenged the First Amendment and its pretenses. Because the First Amendment was at stake, there was almost no conceivable way that the U.S. could effectively prevent or limit the publication of Vietnam War report. If the U.S. had won, then the First Amendment would be useless and meaningless. Upon writing the constitution, our forefathers intended to limit the power of the government and achieve the most democratic society possible. They succeeded back in the late 1700’s and they succeeded again in 1971.
Sources
http://www.civnet.org/resources/teach/basic/part7/48.htm
http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/newyork2.shtml
www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/278/
