New York Times Co. v. United States

1971-06-25
Share:

Headline: Court granted review and set expedited oral argument, temporarily keeping a lower-court restraint on a major newspaper’s publication while consolidating it with a similar newspaper’s challenge.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Keeps appeals-court restraint on a major newspaper in effect temporarily.
  • Orders expedited, consolidated oral argument on June 26, 1971.
  • Allows portions of records to be filed under seal for national-security matters.
Topics: government restraint on newspapers, national security and the press, emergency court orders, consolidated newspaper cases

Summary

Background

A major national newspaper asked the Supreme Court to review an appeals court order that had imposed a restraint on publication. The newspaper sought a stay of the appeals court’s mandate and asked for urgent handling. The Government was involved and the record included a Special Appendix the Government had identified. The appeals court’s restraint remained in effect pending further proceedings.

Reasoning

The Court granted review and set an expedited oral argument for June 26, 1971, and waived the usual printing requirement so briefs and records could be filed simultaneously. The Court granted the newspaper’s application for a stay of the appeals court’s mandate pending further order, and it continued the restraint imposed by the appeals court while the case is argued. The Court consolidated this matter with a similar case involving another newspaper, and it permitted portions of the record or argument related to claimed national-security matters to be filed under seal.

Real world impact

As a result, the appeals court’s restriction on the newspaper’s publication remains in place for now, and the dispute will be decided after expedited full argument. News organizations involved will have to follow court-imposed sealing rules for material described as affecting national security. The decision at this stage is procedural and not a final ruling on the underlying rights or the merits of the dispute.

Dissents or concurrances

Four Justices said they would have vacated the appeals court order except where it affirmed the district court, would not have continued the restraint, and would have denied the petition for review.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases