Justice Black, joined by Justice Douglas, concurring,

The injunctions against the newspapers were a huge violation of their First
Amendment rights. Support for the injunctions says that the Government can, on a
whim, stop publication of a newspaper that does a crucial service by informing the
American people. The First Amendment says pretty clearly that government can
make no law that restricts publication in this way and doing so ignores both the
meaning of the constitution and the intentions of its creators. Freedom of press is
intended to let newspapers serve the people even when the government doesnt
like it.
Justice Douglas joined by Justice Black, concurring.
Theres no statute against publishing the sort of materials that the Times and
the Post want to publish and theres no reason for the government to think that it
can restrict this. The First Amendment is designed to stop the government from
restricting publication of materials that make it look bad. It is undemocratic to
withhold this information from the public, especially when the information is so
beneficial to an already-existing national debate.
Justice Brennan, concurring.
We cannot allow our actions to be taken as approval of the Governments
censorship of unwelcome information. The governments basic case is that the
information published in the pentagon papers would compromise national security.
The government did, not however, live up to the burden of proof that this is true.
Also, the nation was not technically at war with vietnam, so the executive branch
had no legal basis for the prior restraint of publication. Based on the clear and
present danger doctrine, every restriction on publication violates the first
amendment.
Justice Stewart, joined by Justice White, concurring.
Because the executive branch of government has nearly unlimited freedom in
regard to diplomacy and national security, the only checks and balances that exist
lay outside of the government in, an enlightened citizenry. While the president
should have a degree of opinion in how the discussion of national securities inside
the country affects matters outside, it is congresss job to create legislation that
regulates and punishes these sort of things. The government, under the clear and
present danger doctrine, cannot prove that the publication of any part of the Papers
would create national danger.

Justice White, joined by Justice Stewart, concurring.

The dangers to the public of publishing the papers cannot be denied, but
there is no constitutional backing for any injunctions or prior restraints against
publication in this case. Since there is no congressional authorization for these sort
of prior restraints, the United States has not sufficiently satisfied the heavy burden
of proof needed to justify prior restraint.
Justice Marshall, concurring.
The issue here is separation of powers. Congress is the only branch of
government that has the authority to create legislation. In this case, however, the
executive branch is using the judicial to create restrictions against publication that
violate the first amendment. Because congress has not expressly forbidden this sort
of behavior, it would be inconsistent with the concept of separation of powers for
the courts to uphold these injunctions. The precedent of an executive using the
courts to conveniently bypass congressional legislation procedures is a danger to
due process of the law.
Chief Justice Burger, dissenting.
The constitutional protections against prior restraint are so clear that the
Supreme Court rarely ever has need to discuss them. The basic constitutional
principle does not, however make the cases simple. One needs to balance the first
amendment against other principles, such as the governments need to effectively
operate in the modern world. This case was not carried out with the proper
consideration of all the facts on any level. This matter should not be subject to the
decision of a court whose justices largely hold such an absolutist view of the first
amendment.
Justice Harlan, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Blackmun, dissenting.
Given the cases high-profile nature and all of the stir surrounding it, the court
has been too hasty in its deliberation and treatment of the case. All of the writs,
briefs and reports related to this case were submitted in such quick succession and
so close to the date of argument that there was not enough time to consider
everything important to the case.
Justice Blackmun, dissenting.
The issue at hand in the case is with a very select few items in the Papers
that have been deemed dangerous. By and large, the 47 volumes of documents are
fine. the biggest issue is the rate at and manner in which the case has proceeded.
The lower courts were essentially pressured into hasty deliberations on important
constitutional matters that required much more time for careful consideration of a

variety of factors in order for a satisfactory decision to be reached. The case should
be sent back to the lower courts so they can give them the treatment they deserve.