In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg, an employee of the State
Department, “leaked” secret military documents to New York Times
reporter Neil Sheehan. The documents were part of a study commissioned in 1967
by the Johnson administration to determine the process through which the United
States became involved in the Vietnam War, and whether these decisions were
flawed.
When the Nixon Administration learned from The Times
that the “Pentagon Papers,” as they came to be called, had been leaked, they
ordered the newspaper not to publish them, citing national security concerns
and “executive privilege” in controlling government information.
Your task in this case is to determine whether the
government has the power to prohibit a news outlet from publishing secret
information it has already obtained. Note that the question does not involve
punishment after the fact, but “prior restraint” – the prohibition of
publishing at all.
It is expected that attorneys and witnesses will
supplement these basic facts with research on typical conditions and
circumstances of the case. All outside research must be properly cited,
using footnote format. AT LEAST ONE SOURCE CITED HERE MUST BE A BOOK.
Attorneys’ and witnesses’ papers missing this research will not be accepted.
Due on the day of the
trial
For attorneys:
A two-page essay arguing your case. You must argue for or against the
constitutionality of the law. This paper may serve as the basis for your
opening statements in class. Some outside research on the circumstances of
the case will be necessary
For witnesses:
A two-page homework response in the form of an “affidavit,” explaining your
position. You need not argue over the constitutionality of the law, just
describe and explain your behavior.
Due the class meeting
after the trial
For Justices:
A one-page homework response declaring your opinion in the matter. Present your
decision and explain how you came to it.
Assignments
Attorneys for NYT:
Attorneys for US:
Neil Sheehan:
HR Haldeman:
Judges:
Procedures:
8:15-8:30 Meet with your group to review the case
8:30 – 8:40 Opening arguments. Attorneys must present a three-minute
minimum argument before the ourt.
8:40 – 8:55 (maximum) questioning of Sheehan (appellant first)
8:55 – 9:10 (maximum) questioning of Haldeman (respondent first)
9:10 – 9:15 closing
arguments
9:15 – 9:35 Justices deliberate
Each student will earn an essay
(for the written work) and an oral presentation grade (for in-class work).