New York Times Co. v. United States · ¶103

The power to evaluate the “pernicious influence” of premature disclosure is not, however, lodged in. the Executive alone. I agree that, in performance of its duty to protect the values of the First Amendment against political pressures, the judiciary must review the initial Executive determination to the point of satisfying itself that the subject matter of the dispute does lie within the proper compass of the President’s foreign relations power. Constitutional considerations forbid “a complete abandonment of judicial control.” Cf. United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1, 8 (1953). Moreover, the judiciary may properly insist that the determination that disclosure of the subject matter would irreparably impair the national security be made by the head of' the Executive Department concerned — here the Secretary of State, or the Secretary of Defense — after actual personal consideration by…

U. S. Reports, bound volume
U. S. Reports, volume 403, at 713 (Library of Congress) · transcription: Caselaw Access Project
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.