How The Pentagon Papers Redefined Free Speech And Government Accountability

We trace the 15-day showdown over the Pentagon Papers and how the Supreme Court drew a bright line against prior restraint. The story moves from Ellsberg’s leak to the Court’s ruling that the press serves the governed, not the governors.

• Vietnam-era context and collapsing public trust
• Ellsberg’s decision to copy and share the study
• The Times publishes and triggers an emergency court fight
• What prior restraint means and why courts disfavor it
• Near v. Minnesota as the legal foundation
• The Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision and key opinions
• How the ruling guides modern leak coverage
• The difference between embarrassment and immediate harm
• Why transparency is the default in a democracy
• The press as a watchdog serving the public

If you enjoyed this story, share it with someone who loves history, law, or great journalism

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

Chapters

• 2:20 Setting The 1971 Stage
• 3:11 Ellsberg And The Leaked Study
• 4:05 The Government Seeks Prior Restraint
• 5:00 Why Prior Restraint Is Disfavored
• 5:52 Lessons From Near v. Minnesota
• 6:50 The Fifteen-Day Legal Sprint
• 7:29 The Supreme Court’s 6–3 Ruling
• 8:33 Lasting Impacts On Press Freedom
• 10:02 Closing And Listener Invitation

Transcript

SPEAKER_00: 1:33

Today, we're going back to 1971, to a moment when the U.S. government did something almost unthinkable in American law. It asked a court to stop a newspaper from publishing, to literally halt the presses. In doing so, it set the stage for one of the most important First Amendment decisions in American history: New York Times versus the United States, better known as the Pentagon Papers case. This wasn't just a legal battle. It was a race between secrecy and accountability, between national security claims and the public's right to know, between the government and the press in a constitutional showdown that unfolded in just over 15 days. Let's get into it. Okay, so let's ground ourselves here. It's June 1971. The Vietnam War has dragged on for years. American casualties are rising, and public trust in government is falling fast. Enter Daniel Ellsberg, a military analyst who helped compile a massive 7,000-page classified history of the Vietnam War. As he read through it, Ellsberg realized something disturbing. For years, multiple administrations, not just one, had misled Congress and the American people about the war. Ellsberg made a fateful decision. He secretly photocopied the entire study and he approached the New York Times. Reporters dug into the pages and realized the scale of what they were holding, a decades-long record showing deception, doubt, and strategy that contradicted public statements made by presidents and military leaders. On June 13, 1971, the Times did what newspapers do. They published. The headlines exploded across the country. And almost immediately, so did the reaction. Within days, the Nixon administration rushed into federal court demanding an emergency order to stop the Times from publishing anything else. They argued that these were top secret documents, that national security was at stake, and that the paper had to be stopped right now. This was something the U.S. government almost never did. It was asking for something called prior restraint, which is an attempt to stop speech before it happens. And that brings us to a crucial question. Why is prior restraint such a big deal? Prior restraint is one of the most disfavored actions in American constitutional law. It's the government stepping in before words can be spoken or printed, saying, no, you can't publish that. The Supreme Court has long held that the First Amendment carries a heavy presumption against prior restraint. What does that mean? Well, it means if the government wants to stop something from being published, the burden is almost impossibly high. They must prove that the publication will cause direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to the nation. Not embarrassment, not political fallout, not potential criticism, only genuine, imminent danger. That idea did not begin with the Pentagon Papers. It actually comes from a landmark 1931 Supreme Court case called Nier versus Minnesota. In the Nier case, the court struck down a state law that tried to silence a newspaper judged scandalous or malicious. The justices said this is precisely the kind of censorship the First Amendment was written to prevent. And the court gave examples of the only times prior restraint might be justified. So if they are publishing troop movements during wartime, revealing the sailing dates of transports, carrying soldiers, or releasing information that would directly jeopardize lives. These examples would later define the standard in the Pentagon Papers case. The question wasn't, did the publication embarrass the government? The question was, would publication cause immediate catastrophic harm? So again, this was 15 days long. The legal battle was fast and chaotic and historic. Two federal courts heard arguments at lightning speed. One said that the Times could keep publishing, the other said the government had a case. So because there were conflicting rulings at the lower courts and also facing enormous national pressure, the Supreme Court agreed to take the case. In just 15 days after the first article was published, the justices heard oral arguments. On June 30th, 1971, the court handed down its decision, a 6-3 ruling in favor of the New York Times and the Washington Post. The government had failed to meet its burden. Justice Hugo Black wrote one of the most powerful statements in First Amendment history. He said, the press was to serve the governed, not the governors. Justice William Brennan emphasized that prior restraint could only be justified with proof of an immediate danger, saying it required nothing less than an event kindred to imperialing the safety of transport already at sea. In short, the government's fears were speculative. Guess what? Speculative harm is not enough to silence a free press. The presses could keep rolling. More than 50 years later, New York Times versus United States remains the strongest defense against the government's censorship before publication. It continues to shape American life in several ways. One, it sets the bar for how leaks are handled today. So when a news organization publishes sensitive or classified materials, whether it's about surveillance programs, military actions, or diplomatic cables, this case is the legal backbone that protects them. Even in major controversies like WikiLeaks or the Snowden disclosures, the U.S. government almost never tries to stop publication beforehand. Why is that? Because this case makes that fight nearly impossible to win. Secondly, it establishes that the words national security are not necessarily magic words. Courts require evidence, not speculation. The government must show a danger that is real, direct, and immediate, not simply a risk of embarrassment or criticism. Third, it guides newsroom decisions every day. Editors have to ask themselves, does this information post direct harm, or does it simply challenge or inconvenience those in power? The Pentagon Papers case gave them a constitutional framework to make those calls. Fourthly, it shapes our civic culture. This case changed expectations of transparency in America. It helped establish a widespread belief that secrecy should be the exception, not the rule in a democratic society. And lastly, it reaffirmed the press as a democratic watchdog. Justice Black's reminder that the press served the governed still resonates today. The press checks the power by informing the people. In 1971, the Supreme Court did not say the press was always right. It said that the press was essential. It said the First Amendment demands a government strong enough to withstand scrutiny, even uncomfortable scrutiny. It said that the people have a right to know what is done in their name. And it said that no matter how chaotic or controversial the moment, prior restraint is almost never the answer. The Pentagon papers didn't just reveal history, they reshaped how we would understand the balance between secrecy and democracy. Thanks for listening to today's episode of Civics in a Year. If you enjoyed this story, share it with someone who loves history, law, or great journalism. And join us next time as we explore another moment that shaped the American civic landscape.