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.

[1] 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.

[1] The New York Times Washington Bureau Chief Max Frankel stated in 1971, during the organization's ongoing fight to publish the Pentagon Papers, that secrets are often leaked to the press as a means of "testing policy ideas and government initiatives.

"[2] Frankel recounted, for example, that presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson revealed Cold War secrets for political and communication purposes.

[6] 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.

[8] 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.

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.

Bickel responded that Gurfein would be the first judge in American history to enter a prior restraint enjoining the publication of news if he granted the government's request.

[10] 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.

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.

[17] New York Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an expansive 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.

[3] 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... .

... [W]e are asked to hold that ... the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Judiciary can make laws ... abridging the 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 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.

[19] 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).

However, in areas of national defense and international affairs, the President possesses great constitutional independence that is virtually unchecked by the Legislative and Judicial branches.

"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".