## Facts

- The New York Times began publishing articles in June 1971 based on a classified Defense Department study concerning U.S. decision-making on Vietnam policy (the “Pentagon Papers”), including related internal documents and a study of the Tonkin Gulf incident.
- The United States sued the Times and sought to stop further publication and disclosure of the materials, describing them as “Top Secret” or “Secret.”
- The court initially entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring further publication pending a hearing on a preliminary injunction.
- The court conducted an in camera hearing at which government witnesses testified about asserted national-security harms; the Times appeared through counsel, but the proceeding was closed to the public.
- The case came before the district court on the government’s motion for a preliminary injunction to continue restraining publication after the TRO.

## Issues

1. Whether the government proved a sufficient threat to national security to warrant a preliminary injunction imposing a prior restraint on publication.
2. Whether the cited statutes and asserted executive authority authorized a court to enjoin publication of the materials under these circumstances.

## Decision

- The district court denied the government’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court vacated the TRO, permitting the Times to resume publication.
- The court treated the requested relief as an extraordinary prior restraint and held the government had not carried its burden on the record presented.
- The court found that classification status alone did not establish the necessary showing of harm, and the government’s predicted harms were insufficiently concrete to justify advance suppression.
- In weighing equitable factors within the First Amendment framework, the court concluded the government did not justify continuing to restrain publication.

## Legal Principles

- Prior restraints on publication carry a heavy presumption against constitutional validity; the government bears a heavy burden to justify such relief.
- A preliminary injunction in this context requires a strong showing on the merits and irreparable harm, assessed under stringent First Amendment standards when the remedy would restrain speech in advance.
- Generalized claims of harm and the fact of classification, without a showing of specific, immediate, and substantial injury, are inadequate to support a prior restraint.
- Statutes affecting national security are construed cautiously when invoked to suppress publication in advance; absent clear authorization and a constitutionally sufficient showing, courts will not enjoin press publication.
- Courts must independently scrutinize executive claims of national-security harm rather than defer automatically when the requested remedy restrains protected expression.

## Conclusion

The district court refused to continue an injunction stopping publication of the Pentagon Papers because the government did not meet the demanding First Amendment and equitable standards required for a prior restraint, and it vacated the TRO so publication could proceed.


United States v. N.Y. Times Co., 328 F. Supp. 324 (S.D.N.Y. 1971)