We trace the 15-day showdown over the Pentagon Papers and how the Supreme Court drew a bright line against prior restraint. The story moves from Ellsberg’s leak to the Court’s ruling that the press serves the governed, not the governors.

• Vietnam-era context and collapsing public trust
• Ellsberg’s decision to copy and share the study
• The Times publishes and triggers an emergency court fight
• What prior restraint means and why courts disfavor it
• Near v. Minnesota as the legal foundation
• The Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision and key opinions
• How the ruling guides modern leak coverage
• The difference between embarrassment and immediate harm
• Why transparency is the default in a democracy
• The press as a watchdog serving the public

If you enjoyed this story, share it with someone who loves history, law, or great journalism

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

Professor Samantha Barbas traces how New York Times v. Sullivan reshaped libel law, empowered investigative reporting, and protected the civil rights movement, then tests the standard against today’s social media landscape. She unpacks “actual malice,” reputation, and current calls to revisit the ruling.

What you will learn in this episode:

• what libel is and why it matters
• the meaning of actual malice as reckless disregard
• civil rights origins of the Sullivan decision
• how the ruling liberated investigative journalism
• modern critiques from reputation to originalism
• social media’s global scale of harm
• protection for journalists, bloggers, and everyday speakers
• the ongoing balance between speech and reputation

Actual Malice Civil Rights and Freedom of the Press in New York Times v. Sullivan.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

Imagine sharing a district with nine times as many people as the voters next door and getting the same single representative. That stark imbalance was common before Baker v. Carr, and it’s the starting point for our deep dive into how the Supreme Court reshaped representation, why one person, one vote became the baseline, and where the law is drifting now.

We sit down with Professor Stephen Wermiel to unpack the two-step process that changed modern apportionment. First came Baker v. Carr in 1962, which opened the courthouse doors by declaring that extreme population disparities in legislative districts can violate the Equal Protection Clause. Then, in Reynolds v. Sims in 1964, the court set the rule: districts must be drawn with roughly equal populations. That pairing forced states to redraw maps nationwide, bringing urban and rural representation closer to parity and making legislative power track people, not old boundaries.

But equal headcounts didn’t end the fight over power. We explore how partisan gerrymandering flourished within the population rule, as mapmakers learned to pack and crack voters to entrench party control. The Court has largely walled off federal challenges to partisan gerrymanders, holding that these disputes don’t present manageable constitutional standards. At the same time, we dig into the line the Court did draw: racial gerrymandering and vote dilution. For decades, voters could challenge maps that dispersed minority communities to weaken their voice under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Now, a pending case from Louisiana could narrow or even close that pathway, signaling a significant shift in how racial vote dilution claims are treated in federal court.

Across the conversation, we connect doctrine to real-world stakes: school funding, roads, taxes, and who gets heard at the Capitol. You’ll come away with a clear map of how Baker v. Carr changed the game, why Reynolds v. Sims matters every redistricting cycle, and what today’s legal battles could mean for fair representation tomorrow. If conversations about maps, power, and democracy matter to you, press play, share this with a friend, and leave a quick review to help others find the show.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics