Connection lost
Server error
New York Times Co. v. United States Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The government sought to stop newspapers from publishing a classified history of the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court held that the government failed to overcome the heavy presumption against prior restraint on the press required by the First Amendment.
Legal Significance: This landmark case established an extremely high bar for the government to justify a prior restraint on publication, requiring proof that publication would cause direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to the nation. It powerfully affirmed the First Amendment’s protection against censorship.
New York Times Co. v. United States Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The United States government sought to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified study titled “History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy,” commonly known as the Pentagon Papers. The documents, which had been leaked to the press, detailed the history of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam. The government argued that publication would endanger national security by revealing military and diplomatic secrets, thereby prejudicing foreign relations and prolonging the war. It asserted that the President’s inherent constitutional powers over foreign affairs and as Commander in Chief authorized the courts to issue an injunction to prevent “grave and irreparable” injury to the public interest. The newspapers contended that enjoining publication constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech and the press, violating the First Amendment. The government did not rely on any specific congressional statute authorizing such an injunction but instead on the inherent power of the Executive to protect national security. The lower courts were divided, leading to an expedited review by the Supreme Court.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the First Amendment’s protection of a free press permit the government to enjoin the publication of classified information that it alleges will harm national security, absent specific statutory authorization?
No. The government failed to meet its heavy burden of showing justification Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut ali
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the First Amendment’s protection of a free press permit the government to enjoin the publication of classified information that it alleges will harm national security, absent specific statutory authorization?
Conclusion
This case serves as the bedrock precedent against government censorship, establishing that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit e
Legal Rule
"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate vel
Legal Analysis
The Court's per curiam opinion was brief, relying on the principle that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pa
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The U.S. government sought to enjoin the New York Times and