" Ultimately thirty-six researchers and analysts helped to compile the seven thousand-page study of America's Vietnam policy since WWII. In 1971 Daniel Ellsberg, who had been involved in some of the research, leaked the study to the New York Times. Upon the first publication of the reports the government sought and received an injunction to halt publication. The reports were then leaked to the Washington Post and the injunction extended. .
In petitioning the court, the executive branch said it should be the sole judge of national security needs and should be granted a court order to enforce that viewpoint. The Times and the Post countered that it was their First Amendment right to publish whatever they wanted. They also said the government was not worried about national security, but rather embarrassment. The controversial issue facing the Supreme Court was whether or not the government could disregard an amendment if national security was at risk. However, with the Times claiming the publication of the papers would bring no harm to national security, the U.S. had to prove that something in the papers would be detrimental to the security of the nation. Former Solicitor General Erwin N. Griswold represented the government. Yale law professor, Alexander M. Bickel represented the Times. While the attorney for the Washington Post was William Glendon. Griswold argued that 11 items from the Pentagon Papers would cause "great and irreparable harm to the security of the United States."(p30 of transcript) Bickel argued that the government had not shown that there was direct, immediate, or irreparable damage to our Nation or its people by the further publication of the Pentagon Papers, and prior restraint is unconstitutional in most cases. The court was asked to make it a trial quick, and it did. .
On June 30th, 1971 the Supreme Court returned a 6-3 decision freeing the New York Times and the Washington Post to resume publication of articles based on the Pentagon Papers.