What was New York Times v US constitutional issue?

The constitutional issue in New York Times Co. v. United States was whether the government could constitutionally enjoin the publication of information related to the national defense. The New York Times and The Washington Post had obtained and planned to publish classified documents known as the "Pentagon Papers," which contained a detailed history of the United States' involvement in the Vietnam War. The government sought to enjoin the publication, arguing that it would cause irreparable harm to national security.

The Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that the government could not constitutionally enjoin the publication of the Pentagon Papers. The Court's opinion, written by Justice Potter Stewart, held that the government had not met the heavy burden of proof required to justify a prior restraint on speech. The Court noted that the government's interest in protecting national security was substantial, but that it was outweighed by the First Amendment's protection of free speech.

The Court also rejected the government's argument that the publication of the Pentagon Papers would likely lead to irreparable harm. The Court held that the government had not presented any evidence to show that the publication would actually harm national security, and that the government could not rely on speculation or conjecture.

The Court's decision in New York Times Co. v. United States is widely considered to be a landmark ruling in the defense of First Amendment rights. The Court's holding reaffirmed that the government cannot suppress speech merely because it is critical of the government or because it might cause harm. The decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the government's efforts to restrict free speech.