15 Case Summaries for ap gov't & Politics Contents
Congress’ authorization of criminal punishment for certain disclosures is not tantamount to authorization to enjoin such disclosures. Dissents
Download 0.6 Mb. View original pdf
|
| Congress’ authorization of criminal punishment for certain disclosures is not tantamount to authorization to enjoin such disclosures. Dissents In his dissent, Chief Justice Burger complained that the Court had rushed its decision in the cases (it accepted, heard, and decided them in less than a week) and that the justices (and the lower court judges) do not know the facts And, he argued, the facts are critical because the First Amendment right itself is not absolute Given his lack of knowledge of the facts, he declared that he was not prepared to reach the merits of the cases and characterized the Court’s rushed decision as a parody of the legal process Justice John Harlan, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Blackmun, also complained that the Court has been almost irresponsibly feverish in dealing with these cases and the justices had not had time to consider many of the difficult questions of fact, of law, and of judgment.” He did, however, reach the merits, and concluded that the judiciary did not have the right to second-guess the executive branch on matters of national security beyond (1) satisfying itself that the subject matter of the dispute does lie within the proper compass of the President’s foreign relations power and (2) insisting that the determination that disclosure of the subject matter would irreparably harm the national security be made by the head of the Executive Department concerned.” Justice Blackmun emphasized that the First Amendment … is only one part of an entire Constitution and that Article II of the great document vests in the Executive Branch primary power over the conduct of foreign affairs, and places in that branch the responsibility for the Nations safety In his view, each provision of the Constitution is important, and I cannot subscribe to a doctrine of unlimited absolutism for the First Amendment at the cost of downgrading other provisions.” He, therefore, would have sent the case back to the lower courts fora further review of the documents and assessment of the national security implications of publishing them. New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) © 2018 Street Law, Inc. 45 Impact The Supreme Court’s decision in this case lifted the restraining order and allowed the New York Times and the Washington Post to continue publishing the Pentagon Papers. These documents revealed that the US. military was more involved in the wars in Southeast Asia than the public had previously known. Ultimately, only about 5% of the documents were published in the New York Times. The Pentagon Papers were declassified and made fully available to the public in 2011. In 1973, Ellsberg was criminally charged with espionage, conspiracy, and theft for his role in publishing the Pentagon Papers. However, the judge dismissed the case because the government illegally obtained evidence against Ellsberg. New York Times Co. v. United States is considered a victory for the First Amendment’s protections of the free press against government censorship. The per curiam opinion shows that there is a heavy presumption against prior restraint meaning that it is very difficult for the government to prevent information from being published, even in situations where national security maybe at issue. However, because there was no majority opinion in this case, some argue that the decision did not protect the press enough and that there are remaining ways for the government to impose prior restraints in the future. Street Law Case Summary © 2018 Street Law, Inc. Last updated 08/23/2021 Download 0.6 Mb. Share with your friends:
|