New York Times Co. v. United States · ¶49

At least in the absence of legislation by Congress, based on its own investigations and findings, I am quite unable to agree that the jnhgrent powers of the Executive and-, the courts reach so far as tp-autherize^remediesjiaying such sweeping potential for inhibiting publications by the pressv Much of the difficulty inheresln the^grave-abxf irreparable danger” standard suggested by the United States. If the United States were to have judgment under such a standard in these cases, our decision would be of little guidance to other courts in other cases, for the material at issue here would not be available from the Court’s opinion or from public records, nor would it be published by the press. Indeed, even today where we hold that the United- States has not met its burden, the material remains sealed in court records and it is properly not discussed in today’s opinions. Moreover, because…

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.