gurfein bickel s.d.n.y irreparable gobitis blackmun minersville fec _united_states concurrence ass'n abridging misjudgments tasini _v becerra curiam misconducts gesell sorrell johanns willfully gruson barnette afscme abood zauderer oyez 1322 2505
new york times vs united states who won
New York Times Co. v. United States - wikipedia New York Times Co. v. United States This article needs additional citations for verification . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed . ( November 2007 ) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message ) United States Supreme Court case <Th_colspan="2"> New York Times Co. v. United States <Td_colspan="2"> Supreme Court of the United States <Th_colspan="2"> Argued June 26 , 1971 Decided June 30 , 1971 Full case name New York Times Company v. United States ; United States v . The Washington Post Company et al . Citations 403 U.S. 713 ( more ) 91 S. Ct. 2140 ; 29 L. Ed . 2d 822 ; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 100 Prior history United States v. New York Times Co. , 328 F. Supp. 324 ( S.D.N.Y. 1971 ) United States v. New York Times Co. , 444 F. 2d 544 ( 2d Cir. 1971 ) United States v. Washington Post Co. , 446 F. 2d 1322 , 1327 ( D.C. Cir. 1971 ) <Th_colspan="2"> Holding <Td_colspan="2"> To exercise prior restraint , the Government must show sufficient evidence that the publication would cause a `` grave and irreparable '' danger . <Th_colspan="2"> Court membership <Td_colspan="2"> Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices Hugo Black William O. Douglas John M. Harlan II William J. Brennan Jr . Potter Stewart Byron White Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun <Th_colspan="2"> Case opinions <Td_colspan="2"> Per curiam . Concurrence Black , joined by Douglas Concurrence Douglas , joined by Black Concurrence Brennan Concurrence Stewart , joined by White Concurrence White , joined by Stewart Concurrence Marshall Dissent Burger Dissent Harlan , joined by Burger , Blackmun Dissent Blackmun <Th_colspan="2"> Laws applied <Td_colspan="2"> U.S. Const . amend . I New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U.S. 713 ( 1971 ) , was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the First Amendment . The ruling made it possible for The New York Times and The Washington Post newspapers to publish the then - classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment . President Richard Nixon had claimed executive authority to force the Times to suspend publication of classified information in its possession . The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press , guaranteed by the First Amendment , was subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of government to maintain the secrecy of information . The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect the right of The New York Times to print the materials . Contents 1 Background 1.1 Restraining order sought 1.2 Section 793 of the Espionage Act 1.3 United States v. Washington Post Co . 2 Supreme Court 2.1 Concurring opinions 2.2 Dissenting opinions 3 See also 4 References 5 Further reading 6 External links Background ( edit ) Further information : Pentagon Papers By 1971 , the United States had been overtly at war with North Vietnam for six years . At this point , 59,000 American soldiers had died and the government was facing widespread dissent from large portions of the American public . In 1967 Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara commissioned a `` massive top - secret history of the United States role in Indochina '' . Daniel Ellsberg , who had helped to produce the report , leaked 43 volumes of the 47 - volume , 7,000 - page report to reporter Neil Sheehan of The New York Times in March 1971 and the paper began publishing articles outlining the findings . Restraining order sought ( edit ) The black article appeared in the Times ' Sunday edition , on June 13 , 1971 . By the following Tuesday , the Times received an order to cease further publication from a District Court judge , at the request of the administration . The government claimed it would cause `` irreparable injury to the defense interests of the United States '' and wanted 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 the Vietnam Policy . '' The government sought a restraining order that barred the Times from publishing any further articles based upon the Pentagon Papers . In addition to The New York Times Company , the Justice Department named the following defendants : Arthur Ochs Sulzberger , president and publisher ; Harding Bancroft and Ivan Veit , executive vice presidents ; Francis Cox , James Goodale , Sydney Gruson , Walter Mattson , John McCabe , John Mortimer and James Reston , vice presidents ; John B. Oakes , editorial page editor ; A. M. Rosenthal , managing editor ; Daniel Schwarz , Sunday editor ; Clifton Daniel and Tom Wicker , associate editors ; Gerald Gold and Allan Siegal , assistant foreign editors ; Neil Sheehan , Hedrick Smith , E.W. Kenworthy and Fox Butterfield , reporters ; and Samuel Abt , a foreign desk copy editor . Section 793 of the Espionage Act ( edit ) Floyd Abrams , counsel to The New York Times Section 793 of the Espionage Act was cited by Attorney General John N. Mitchell as cause for the United States to bar further publication of stories based upon the Pentagon Papers . The statute was spread over three pages of the United States Code Annotated and the only part that appeared to apply to the Times was 793 ( e ) , which made it criminal for : Whoever having unauthorized possession of , access to , or control over any document , writing , code book , signal book , sketch , photograph , photographic negative , blueprint , plan , map , model , instrument , appliance , or note relating to the national defense , or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation , willfully communicates , delivers , transmits or causes to be communicated , delivered , or transmitted , or attempts to communicate , deliver , transmit or cause to be communicated , delivered , or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it , or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it . Based on this language , Alexander Bickel and Floyd Abrams felt there were three preliminary arguments to raise . First , the wording of the statute was very broad . Was each article about foreign policy one `` relating to the national defense '' ? What was the significance of `` reason to believe '' that the Pentagon Papers `` could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation '' ? If the motivation was to educate the public , was that a defense that served to help , not hinder , the country ? Would the public be `` a person not entitled to receive '' the information ? Of equal importance was what the statute did not say : No references to `` publication '' ( as Attorney General Mitchell 's cease - and - desist order referenced ) , no reference to classified information , and no support for Mitchell 's reliance on the top secret classification to justify restraint on publication . Additionally , there was no statutory language providing authority for prior restraint on publication at all . Second , was the relevance of Mitchell 's reliance on a criminal statute in a civil proceeding seeking prior restraint . There was Supreme Court precedent that lent support to the idea that bans on the publication of information by the press to be unconstitutional . In 1907 Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the `` main purpose '' of the First Amendment was `` to prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments . '' In 1931 the Court wrote that only the narrowest circumstances -- such as publication of the dates of departure of ships during wartime -- were permissibly restrained . In 1969 John Marshall Harlan II wrote that the Supreme Court `` rejected all manner of prior restraint on publication . '' This second line of reasoning made it seem the statute should only be dealt with in passing , making the case a First Amendment one and the relief the government wanted -- a bar on publication -- unavailable . The third possible approach was a very broad view of the First Amendment , one not focused on the impact of a government victory on the life of a democratic society if prior restraint were granted ; but that the publication of just these sorts of materials -- governmental misjudgments and misconducts of high import -- is exactly why the First Amendment exists . Federal judge Murray Gurfein heard arguments in the District Court for the Southern District of New York . Michael Hess , chief of the Civil Division of the United States Attorneys Office , argued `` serious injuries are being inflicted on our foreign relations , to the benefit of other nations opposed to our foreign relations , to the benefit of other nations opposed to our form of government . '' Hess relied on Secretary of State William P. Rogers 's statement reported earlier that day that a number of nations were concerned about the Papers publication and an affidavit from the general counsel of the Navy that alleged irreparable injury if publication did not cease . Hess asked for a temporary restraining order . Bickel argued that the separation of powers barred the court from issuing the restraining order since there was no statute authorizing such relief . He further argued that there was no exception to the general unavailability of prior restraint that applied in this case . Gurfein called all counsel to his chambers and asked Bickel and Abrams to have the Times cease publication of the Papers until he could review them . Bickel responded that Gurfein would be the first judge in American history to enter a prior restraint enjoining publication of news if he granted the government 's request . The Times refused to cease publication . Gurfein granted the request and set a hearing for June 18 . The New York Times agreed to abide by the restraining order and on June 19 , Judge Gurfein rejected the administration 's request for an injunction , writing that `` ( t ) he security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone . Security also lies in the value of our free institutions . A cantankerous press , an obstinate press , a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know . '' However , the Court of Appeals , after an en banc hearing , granted an injunction until June 25 . United States v. Washington Post Co. ( edit ) On June 18 , 1971 , The Washington Post began publishing its own series of articles based upon the Pentagon Papers . That day , Assistant U.S. Attorney General William Rehnquist asked the Post to cease publication . After the paper refused , Rehnquist sought an injunction in the District Court for the District of Columbia , but Judge Gerhard Gesell rejected the government 's request , as did the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit . This inconsistency between the courts of appeal led the Supreme Court to hear the case . Supreme Court ( edit ) The Supreme Court heard arguments from the Executive Branch , the Times , the Post , and the Justice Department on June 25 and 26 , 1971 . Along with the issue of how the Times obtained the documents ( which was being investigated by a federal grand jury elsewhere ) the real issue for the Court was whether there was a sufficient justification for prior restraint , which would be a suspension of the newspapers ' First Amendment rights to freedom of the press . The First Amendment states that no federal law can be made abridging the freedom of the press , but a few landmark cases in the 20th century had established precedents creating exceptions to that rule . The most recent incarnation of the exception was the grave and probable danger rule , established in Dennis v. United States , 341 U.S. 494 ( 1951 ) . During this case , the wording was changed to the grave and irreparable danger standard . The idea behind the numerous versions of the rule is that if a certain message will likely cause a `` grave and irreparable '' danger to the American public when expressed , then the message 's prior restraint could be considered an acceptable infringement of civil liberties . The Supreme Court was therefore charged with determining if the Government had sufficiently met the `` burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint '' . On June 30 , with six Justices concurring and three dissenting , the Supreme Court upheld the right of the newspapers to publish the material . The Court issued a very brief per curiam opinion , stating only that the Court concurred with the decisions of the two lower courts to reject the Government 's request for an injunction . In its decision , the court first established the legal question with the use of precedents . It first stated that `` Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity '' . The purpose of this statement was to make the presence of the inherent conflict between the Government 's efforts and the First Amendment clear . The decision then stated that the government `` thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint '' . This reinforced the idea that it was the Nixon Administration 's responsibility to show sufficient evidence that the newspapers ' actions would cause a `` grave and irreparable '' danger . New York Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment , but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint , its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents . Concurring opinions ( edit ) Justice Hugo Black wrote an opinion that elaborated on his view of the absolute superiority of the First Amendment : ( T ) he injunction against The New York Times should have been vacated without oral argument when the cases were first presented ... ( E ) very moment 's continuance of the injunctions ... amounts to a flagrant , indefensible , and continuing violation of the First Amendment ... The Government 's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government . The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people . Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in 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 foreign shot and shell ... ( W ) e are asked to hold that ... the Executive Branch , the Congress , and the Judiciary can make laws ... abridging freedom of the press in the name of ' national security . ' ... To find that the President has ' inherent power ' to halt the publication of news ... would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make ' secure . ' ... The word ' security ' is a broad , vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment . The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security ... The Framers of the First Amendment , fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments , sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech , press , religion , and assembly should not be abridged . Justice William O. Douglas largely concurred with Black , arguing that the need for a free press as a check on government prevents any governmental restraint on the press . Justice William J. Brennan , Jr. , wrote separately to explain that the publication of the documents did not qualify as one of the three exceptions to the freedom of expression established in Near v. Minnesota ( 1931 ) . Justices Potter Stewart and Byron R. White agreed that it is the responsibility of the Executive to ensure national security through the protection of its information . However , in areas of national defense and international affairs , the President possesses great constitutional independence that is virtually unchecked by the Legislative and Judicial branch . `` In absence of governmental checks and balances '' , wrote Justice Stewart , `` the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in ( these two areas ) may lie in an enlightened citizenry -- in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government '' . Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the term `` national security '' was too broad to legitimize prior restraint , and also argued that it is not the Court 's job to create laws where the Congress had not spoken . Dissenting opinions ( edit ) Chief Justice Warren E. Burger , dissenting , argued that when `` the imperative of a free and unfettered press comes into collision with another imperative , the effective functioning of a complex modern government '' , there should be a detailed study on the effects of these actions . He argued that in the haste of the proceedings , and given the size of the documents , the Court was unable to gather enough information to make a decision . He also argued that the Times should have discussed the possible societal repercussions with the Government prior to publication of the material . The Chief Justice did not argue that the Government had met the aforementioned standard , but rather that the decision should not have been made so hastily . Justice John M. Harlan and Justice Harry A. Blackmun joined Burger in arguing the faults in the proceedings , and the lack of attention towards national security and the rights of the Executive . See also ( edit ) Government of the United States portal Journalism portal Freedom of speech portal New York Times Co. v. Sullivan ( 1964 ) New York Times Co. v. Tasini ( 2001 ) List of United States Supreme Court cases , volume 403 Spiegel scandal , a similar case in West Germany The Post , a 2017 historical drama film directed by Steven Spielberg about the Pentagon Papers References ( edit ) ^ Jump up to : New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U.S. 713 ( 1971 ) . This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document . ^ Jump up to : Correll , John T . `` The Pentagon Papers '' Air Force Magazine , February 2007 . Jump up ^ Chokshi , Niraj ( 2017 - 12 - 20 ) . `` Behind the Race to Publish the Top - Secret Pentagon Papers '' . The New York Times . ISSN 0362 - 4331 . Retrieved 2018 - 01 - 20 . Jump up ^ Blanchard , Margaret A. ( 1992 - 05 - 07 ) . Revolutionary Sparks : Freedom of Expression in Modern America . Oxford University Press . ISBN 9780195363739 . Jump up ^ `` Court Here Refuses to Order Return of Documents Now '' . The New York Times . Retrieved 2018 - 01 - 20 . Jump up ^ Text of Espionage Act at Findlaw.com Jump up ^ Fred Graham , `` Court Here Refuses to Order Return of Documents Now '' , The New York Times , June 16 , 2010 . Jump up ^ United States v. New York Times Co. , 328 F. Supp. 324 , 331 ( S.D.N.Y. 1971 ) . Jump up ^ United States v. New York Times Co. , 444 F. 2d 544 ( 2d Cir. 1971 ) . Jump up ^ United States v. Washington Post Co. , 446 F. 2d 1322 , 1327 ( D.C. Cir. 1971 ) . Jump up ^ New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U.S. at 714 . Jump up ^ Oyez Jump up ^ New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U.S. at 714 -- 20 . Jump up ^ New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U.S. at 720 -- 24 . Jump up ^ New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U.S. at 724 -- 27 . Jump up ^ New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U.S. at 727 -- 30 . Jump up ^ New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U.S. at 740 -- 48 . Jump up ^ New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U.S. at 748 -- 52 . Jump up ^ New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U.S. at 752 -- 63 . Further reading ( edit ) Edgar , Harold ; Schmidt , Benno C. , Jr. ( 1973 ) . `` The Espionage Statutes and Publication of Defense Information '' . Columbia Law Review . Columbia Law Review . 73 ( 5 ) : 929 -- 1087 . doi : 10.2307 / 1121711 . JSTOR 1121711 . CS1 maint : Multiple names : authors list ( link ) Prados , John ; Porter , Margaret Pratt ( 2004 ) . Inside the Pentagon papers . Lawrence : University Press of Kansas . ISBN 0 - 7006 - 1325 - 0 . → Abrams is quoted as saying the book is the `` most complete , incisive , and persuasive study of those documents yet published '' . Sheehan , Neil ; et al. ( 1971 ) . The Pentagon Papers . New York : New York Times Co . Shapiro , Martin ( 1972 ) . The Pentagon Papers and the Courts . Toronto : Chandler Publishing Company . Schmidt , Steffen ; Shelley , Mack ; Bardes , Barbara ( 2005 ) . American Government and Politics Today . Toronto : Thompson Wadsworth . ISBN 0 - 534 - 63162 - 2 . Schwartz , Bernard ( 1992 ) . Freedom of the Press . New York : Facts on File . ISBN 0 - 8160 - 2505 - 3 . External links ( edit ) Wikisource has original text related to this article : New York Times Co. v. United States Text of New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U.S. 713 ( 1971 ) is available from : Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Justia Oyez OpenJurist Google Scholar George Washington University `` Top Secret : Battle for the Pentagon Papers '' a resource site that supports a currently playing docu - drama about the Pentagon Papers . The site provides historical context , time lines , bibliographical resources , information on discussions with current journalists , and helpful links . First Amendment Library entry for New York Times Co. v. United States General case background . Includes audio of the oral arguments New York Times v. United States from C - SPAN 's Landmark Cases : Historic Supreme Court Decisions <Th_colspan="2"> hide United States First Amendment case law <Td_colspan="2"> <Th_colspan="2"> Establishment Clause <Td_colspan="2"> Public funding Everson v. Board of Education ( 1947 ) McCollum v. Board of Education ( 1948 ) Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York ( 1970 ) Lemon v. Kurtzman ( 1971 ) Marsh v. Chambers ( 1983 ) Mueller v. Allen ( 1983 ) Aguilar v. Felton ( 1985 ) Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet ( 1994 ) Agostini v. Felton ( 1997 ) Mitchell v. Helms ( 2000 ) Zelman v. Simmons - Harris ( 2002 ) Locke v. Davey ( 2004 ) Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn ( 2011 ) Public displays Stone v. Graham ( 1980 ) Lynch v. Donnelly ( 1984 ) Board of Trustees of Scarsdale v. McCreary ( 1985 ) County of Allegheny v. ACLU ( 1989 ) McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky ( 2005 ) Van Orden v. Perry ( 2005 ) Pleasant Grove City v. Summum ( 2009 ) School prayer Zorach v. Clauson ( 1952 ) Engel v. Vitale ( 1962 ) Abington School District v. Schempp ( 1963 ) Stone v. Graham ( 1980 ) Wallace v. Jaffree ( 1985 ) Lee v. Weisman ( 1992 ) Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe ( 2000 ) Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow ( 2004 ) Creationism Epperson v. Arkansas ( 1968 ) Edwards v. Aguillard ( 1987 ) Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ( M.D. Pa. 2005 ) Legislature prayer Marsh v. Chambers ( 1983 ) Town of Greece v. Galloway ( 2014 ) Other McGowan v. Maryland ( 1961 ) McDaniel v. Paty ( 1978 ) Estate of Thornton v. Caldor , Inc. ( 1985 ) Texas Monthly , Inc. v. Bullock ( 1989 ) Hosanna - Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( 2012 ) <Td_colspan="2"> <Th_colspan="2"> Free Exercise Clause <Td_colspan="2"> Reynolds v. United States ( 1879 ) Davis v. Beason ( 1890 ) Schneider v. New Jersey ( 1939 ) Cantwell v. Connecticut ( 1940 ) Minersville School District v. Gobitis ( 1940 ) Murdock v. Pennsylvania ( 1943 ) United States v. Ballard ( 1944 ) Braunfeld v. Brown ( 1961 ) Torcaso v. Watkins ( 1961 ) Sherbert v. Verner ( 1963 ) Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church ( 1969 ) Wisconsin v. Yoder ( 1972 ) Harris v. McRae ( 1980 ) Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division ( 1981 ) United States v. Lee ( 1982 ) Bob Jones University v. United States ( 1983 ) Bowen v. Roy ( 1986 ) Goldman v. Weinberger ( 1986 ) Employment Division v. Smith ( 1990 ) Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah ( 1993 ) City of Boerne v. Flores ( 1997 ) Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton ( 2002 ) Cutter v. Wilkinson ( 2005 ) Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia , Inc. v. Comer ( 2017 ) Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ( 2018 ) National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra ( 2018 ) <Td_colspan="2"> <Th_colspan="2"> Freedom of speech ( portal ) <Td_colspan="2"> Sedition and imminent danger Alien and Sedition Acts ( 1798 ) Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten ( S.D.N.Y. 1917 ) Schenck v. United States ( 1919 ) Abrams v. United States ( 1919 ) Gitlow v. New York ( 1925 ) Whitney v. California ( 1927 ) Dennis v. United States ( 1951 ) Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board ( 1955 , 1961 ) Yates v. United States ( 1957 ) Bond v. Floyd ( 1966 ) Brandenburg v. Ohio ( 1969 ) Hess v. Indiana ( 1973 ) False speech United States v. Alvarez ( 2012 ) Fighting words and the heckler 's veto Cantwell v. Connecticut ( 1940 ) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire ( 1942 ) Terminiello v. Chicago ( 1949 ) Feiner v. New York ( 1951 ) Gregory v. Chicago ( 1969 ) National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie ( 1977 ) R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul ( 1992 ) Snyder v. Phelps ( 2011 ) Elonis v. United States ( 2015 ) Freedom of assembly and public forums Hague v. CIO ( 1939 ) Schneider v. New Jersey ( 1939 ) Thornhill v. Alabama ( 1940 ) Martin v. City of Struthers ( 1943 ) Marsh v. Alabama ( 1946 ) Niemotko v. Maryland ( 1951 ) Edwards v. South Carolina ( 1963 ) Cox v. Louisiana ( 1965 ) Brown v. Louisiana ( 1966 ) Adderley v. Florida ( 1966 ) Carroll v. Town of Princess Anne ( 1968 ) Coates v. Cincinnati ( 1971 ) Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe ( 1971 ) Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner ( 1972 ) Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins ( 1980 ) Hill v. Colorado ( 2000 ) McCullen v. Coakley ( 2014 ) Packingham v. North Carolina ( 2017 ) Symbolic speech Stromberg v. California ( 1931 ) United States v. O'Brien ( 1968 ) Cohen v. California ( 1971 ) Smith v. Goguen ( 1974 ) Texas v. Johnson ( 1989 ) United States v. Eichman ( 1990 ) Virginia v. Black ( 2003 ) Compelled speech Minersville School District v. Gobitis ( 1940 ) West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ( 1943 ) Wooley v. Maynard ( 1977 ) Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International , Inc. ( 2013 ) National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra ( 2018 ) Compelled subsidy of others ' speech Abood v. Detroit Board of Education ( 1977 ) Communications Workers of America v. Beck ( 1978 ) Keller v. State Bar of California ( 1990 ) Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth ( 2000 ) Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association ( 2005 ) Davenport v. Washington Education Association ( 2007 ) Knox v. Service Employees International Union , Local 1000 ( 2012 ) Harris v. Quinn ( 2014 ) Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass'n ( 2016 ) Janus v. AFSCME ( 2018 ) Loyalty oaths American Communications Association v. Douds ( 1950 ) Garner v. Board of Public Works ( 1951 ) Speiser v. Randall ( 1958 ) Keyishian v. Board of Regents ( 1967 ) Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb ( 1974 ) School speech Minersville School District v. Gobitis ( 1940 ) West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ( 1943 ) Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District ( 1969 ) Island Trees School District v. Pico ( 1982 ) Bethel School District v. Fraser ( 1986 ) Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier ( 1988 ) Rosenberger v. University of Virginia ( 1995 ) Morse v. Frederick ( 2007 ) Obscenity Rosen v. United States ( 1896 ) United States v. One Book Called Ulysses ( S.D.N.Y. 1933 ) Roth v. United States ( 1957 ) One , Inc. v. Olesen ( 1958 ) Smith v. California ( 1959 ) Marcus v. Search Warrant ( 1961 ) MANual Enterprises v. Day ( 1962 ) Jacobellis v. Ohio ( 1964 ) Quantity of Books v. Kansas ( 1964 ) Freedman v. Maryland ( 1965 ) Ginzburg v. United States ( 1966 ) Memoirs v. Massachusetts ( 1966 ) Redrup v. New York ( 1967 ) Ginsberg v. New York ( 1968 ) Stanley v. Georgia ( 1969 ) Cohen v. California ( 1971 ) United States v. Thirty - seven Photographs ( 1971 ) Kois v. Wisconsin ( 1972 ) Miller v. California ( 1973 ) Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton ( 1973 ) United States v. 12 200 - ft . Reels of Film ( 1973 ) Jenkins v. Georgia ( 1974 ) Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville ( 1975 ) Young v. American Mini Theatres ( 1976 ) New York v. Ferber ( 1982 ) American Booksellers v. Hudnut ( 7th Cir. , 1985 ) Renton v. Playtime Theatres , Inc. ( 1986 ) People v. Freeman ( Cal. 1988 ) Osborne v. Ohio ( 1990 ) United States v. X-Citement Video ( 1994 ) Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union ( 1997 ) United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group ( 2000 ) Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition ( 2002 ) Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union ( 2002 ) Nitke v. Gonzales ( S.D.N.Y. , 2005 ) United States v. Williams ( 2008 ) Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations ( 2012 ) American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland ( 6th Cir. , 2009 ) United States v. Kilbride ( 9th Cir. , 2009 ) United States v. Stevens ( 2010 ) Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association ( 2011 ) Public employees Pickering v. Board of Education ( 1968 ) Perry v. Sindermann ( 1972 ) Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth ( 1972 ) Mt . Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle ( 1977 ) Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District ( 1979 ) Connick v. Myers ( 1983 ) Rankin v. McPherson ( 1987 ) Waters v. Churchill ( 1994 ) Garcetti v. Ceballos ( 2006 ) Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri ( 2011 ) Heffernan v. City of Paterson ( 2016 ) Hatch Act and similar laws Ex parte Curtis ( 1882 ) United Public Workers v. Mitchell ( 1947 ) United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers ( 1973 ) Broadrick v. Oklahoma ( 1973 ) Licensing and restriction of speech Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio ( 1915 ) Joseph Burstyn , Inc. v. Wilson ( 1952 ) NAACP v. Button ( 1963 ) Freedman v. Maryland ( 1965 ) Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council ( 1976 ) Hoffman Estates v . The Flipside , Hoffman Estates , Inc. ( 1982 ) Walker v. Texas Division , Sons of Confederate Veterans ( 2015 ) Matal v. Tam ( 2017 ) Commercial speech Valentine v. Chrestensen ( 1942 ) Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. ( 1970 ) Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations ( 1973 ) Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 1974 ) Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council ( 1976 ) Bates v. State Bar of Arizona ( 1977 ) Linmark Associates , Inc. v. Willingboro ( 1977 ) Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission ( 1980 ) Consol . Edison Co. v. Public Serv . Comm'n ( 1980 ) Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio ( 1985 ) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California ( 1986 ) Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico ( 1986 ) San Francisco Arts & Athletics , Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee ( 1987 ) 44 Liquormart , Inc. v. Rhode Island ( 1996 ) Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. ( 2011 ) Campaign finance and political speech Buckley v. Valeo ( 1976 ) First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti ( 1978 ) Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley ( 1981 ) Brown v. Socialist Workers ' 74 Campaign Committee ( 1982 ) Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington ( 1983 ) FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life ( 1986 ) Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce ( 1990 ) McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission ( 1995 ) Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC ( 1996 ) Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC ( 2000 ) Republican Party of Minnesota v. White ( 2002 ) McConnell v. FEC ( 2003 ) Randall v. Sorrell ( 2006 ) FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life , Inc. ( 2007 ) Davis v. FEC ( 2008 ) Citizens United v. FEC ( 2010 ) McComish v. Bennett ( 2011 ) American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock ( 2012 ) McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ( 2014 ) Williams - Yulee v . The Florida Bar ( 2015 ) <Td_colspan="2"> <Th_colspan="2"> hide Freedom of the press <Td_colspan="2"> Prior restraints and censorship Near v. Minnesota ( 1931 ) Lovell v. City of Griffin ( 1938 ) Hannegan v. Esquire , Inc. ( 1946 ) New York Times Co. v. United States ( 1971 ) Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo ( 1974 ) Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart ( 1976 ) Landmark Communications , Inc. v. Virginia ( 1978 ) Tory v. Cochran ( 2005 ) Privacy Time , Inc. v. Hill ( 1967 ) Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn ( 1975 ) Florida Star v. B.J.F. ( 1989 ) Taxation and privileges Grosjean v. American Press Co. ( 1936 ) Branzburg v. Hayes ( 1972 ) Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner ( 1983 ) Defamation Beauharnais v. Illinois ( 1952 ) New York Times Co. v. Sullivan ( 1964 ) Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts ( 1967 ) Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass'n , Inc. v. Bresler ( 1970 ) Gertz v. Robert Welch , Inc. ( 1974 ) Time , Inc. v. Firestone ( 1976 ) Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States , Inc. ( 1984 ) Dun & Bradstreet , Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders , Inc. ( 1985 ) McDonald v. Smith ( 1985 ) Hustler Magazine v. Falwell ( 1988 ) Harte - Hanks Communications , Inc. v. Connaughton ( 1989 ) Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. ( 1990 ) Obsidian Finance Group , LLC v. Cox ( 9th Cir. , 2014 ) Broadcast media Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC ( 1969 ) FCC v. Pacifica Foundation ( 1978 ) Turner Broadcasting System , Inc. v. FCC ( 1994 ) Bartnicki v. Vopper ( 2001 ) Copyrighted materials Zacchini v. Scripps - Howard Broadcasting Co. ( 1977 ) Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises ( 1985 ) <Td_colspan="2"> <Th_colspan="2"> Freedom of association <Td_colspan="2"> Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath ( 1951 ) Watkins v. United States ( 1957 ) NAACP v. Alabama ( 1958 ) NAACP v. Button ( 1963 ) Baggett v. Bullitt ( 1964 ) In re Primus ( 1978 ) Roberts v. United States Jaycees ( 1984 ) Hurley v. Irish - American Gay , Lesbian , & Bisexual Group of Boston ( 1995 ) Boy Scouts of America v. Dale ( 2000 ) Retrieved from `` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States&oldid=853460603 '' Categories : United States Supreme Court cases United States Free Speech Clause case law American media history The New York Times Vietnam War and the media 1971 in United States case law American Civil Liberties Union litigation United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court Pentagon Papers Hidden categories : Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the United States Government Articles needing additional references from November 2007 All articles needing additional references Articles with short description Articles containing Latin - language text All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from November 2017 CS1 maint : Multiple names : authors list Talk Contents About Wikipedia 中文 Edit links This page was last edited on 4 August 2018 , at 23 : 22 ( UTC ) . Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply . By using this site , you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy . Wikipedia ® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation , Inc. , a non-profit organization . About Wikipedia