What do you think?
Rate this book
The Day the Presses Stopped: A History of the Pentagon Papers Case
This bold account provides an original perspective on one of the most significant legal struggles in American history: the Nixon administration's efforts to prohibit the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the 7,000-page, top-secret Pentagon Papers, which traced U.S. involvement in Vietnam. In his gripping account of this highly charged case, Rudenstine examines new evidence, raises difficult questions, and challenges conventional views of a historic moment.
452 pages, Paperback
First published May 14, 1996
2 people are currently reading
147 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
July 14, 2025
David Rudenstine is a respected constitutional scholar, having served on the faculty of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law for over 40 years. His book, "The Day the Presses Stopped: A History of the Pentagon Papers Case," was not rushed into print immediately after the landmark legal battle, but instead benefits from looking back at the Pentagon Papers scandal free from the white-hot pressures of the moment.
Rudenstine's book is written in a style that will be very familiar to anyone who has ever sat through a constitutional law lecture. All the information is there, and is extremely well organized. The book proceeds point-by-point after offering some brief and entertaining background regarding the (mainly) men involved and just where their hearts and minds were in 1970-1971. Rudenstine explains Robert McNamara's decision to commission the PP study in the first place and how Daniel Ellsberg got involved in the study, as well as Ellsberg's eventual disenchantment with the whole thing.
On the plus side, Rudenstine does not blow the PP out of proportion, and indeed at the outset the reader sees the wisdom in Nixon's first reaction to the publishing of the PP - this is no big deal, much of what is in the PP is already known, and the PPs do not blame the Nixon Administration for anything regarding Vietnam. But then someone - probably Kissinger, in Rudenstine's telling (Kissinger is the closest thing we get to a villain in this book) - got to Nixon, and soon Nixon was foaming at the mouth about evil leakers and their collaborators in the press.
Once the legal battle over the PP starts, however, Rudenstine's book becomes a slog. Rudenstine can't help but exercise his law prof muscles by analyzing the nuances of arguments made by opposing counsel, even judging their deliveries during oral argument and critiquing both strategy and tactics. This is more than unfair considering the relative light speed with which this case moved forward. This would be fine if this book were marketed as a legal history, or as a book aimed at litigators who want to understand in great detail how the legal arguments were crafted and presented. But while there may be an audience for this type of book - and even a passionate audience - it would not be very broad, and so this book is marketed just as a "history."
The other disappointment is that Rudenstine is just not a compelling writer. I've had the good fortune recently to read some truly wonderful authors of history - Robert Caro, Rick Atkinson, Catherine Drinker Bowen, Jill Lepore, and Barbara Tuchman among them. It may not be fair, but Rudenstine is just not in their class - his prose is logical and thorough, but workmanlike in the extreme. I also read Ben Bradlee's memoir, "A Good Life," and his telling of the PP story is far more intriguing.
I have no quibbles with Rudenstine's logic or conclusions, and it is refreshing to read any book involving Nixon that acknowledges that Nixon - while horribly flawed - may have had a valid point or two with some arguments. But reading this book is like eating raw spinach - nutritious, but hardly enjoyable.
Rudenstine's book is written in a style that will be very familiar to anyone who has ever sat through a constitutional law lecture. All the information is there, and is extremely well organized. The book proceeds point-by-point after offering some brief and entertaining background regarding the (mainly) men involved and just where their hearts and minds were in 1970-1971. Rudenstine explains Robert McNamara's decision to commission the PP study in the first place and how Daniel Ellsberg got involved in the study, as well as Ellsberg's eventual disenchantment with the whole thing.
On the plus side, Rudenstine does not blow the PP out of proportion, and indeed at the outset the reader sees the wisdom in Nixon's first reaction to the publishing of the PP - this is no big deal, much of what is in the PP is already known, and the PPs do not blame the Nixon Administration for anything regarding Vietnam. But then someone - probably Kissinger, in Rudenstine's telling (Kissinger is the closest thing we get to a villain in this book) - got to Nixon, and soon Nixon was foaming at the mouth about evil leakers and their collaborators in the press.
Once the legal battle over the PP starts, however, Rudenstine's book becomes a slog. Rudenstine can't help but exercise his law prof muscles by analyzing the nuances of arguments made by opposing counsel, even judging their deliveries during oral argument and critiquing both strategy and tactics. This is more than unfair considering the relative light speed with which this case moved forward. This would be fine if this book were marketed as a legal history, or as a book aimed at litigators who want to understand in great detail how the legal arguments were crafted and presented. But while there may be an audience for this type of book - and even a passionate audience - it would not be very broad, and so this book is marketed just as a "history."
The other disappointment is that Rudenstine is just not a compelling writer. I've had the good fortune recently to read some truly wonderful authors of history - Robert Caro, Rick Atkinson, Catherine Drinker Bowen, Jill Lepore, and Barbara Tuchman among them. It may not be fair, but Rudenstine is just not in their class - his prose is logical and thorough, but workmanlike in the extreme. I also read Ben Bradlee's memoir, "A Good Life," and his telling of the PP story is far more intriguing.
I have no quibbles with Rudenstine's logic or conclusions, and it is refreshing to read any book involving Nixon that acknowledges that Nixon - while horribly flawed - may have had a valid point or two with some arguments. But reading this book is like eating raw spinach - nutritious, but hardly enjoyable.
January 4, 2018
THE DAY THE PRESSES STOPPED: A HISTORY OF THE PENTAGON PAPERS CASE by David Rudenstine is a fascinating and brilliant legal analysis of the various Federal cases involved in the government’s attempt to preemptively restrain the NEW YORK TIMES and the WASHINGTON POST from publishing the Pentagon Papers. It was a joy to read. Admittedly, this might not be a book for everyone. You need to relish a good argument, exhaustively explained in extraordinarily clear prose. Rudenstine, a professor of law, doesn’t just recount events; he’s a Monday morning quarterback, pointing out mistakes and missed opportunities on all sides. This insight is a great value-add.
Probably like most people, I had viewed the Pentagon Papers case as the government’s attempt to simply avoid embarrassment. Rudenstine makes clear that this was hardly the truth. The government had quite legitimate concerns. I also seemed to believe that the failure of the government to obtain injunctive relief was inevitable. TDTPS shows this presumption is not at all true. Minimally fettered freedom of the press really hung in the balance in the summer of 1971 and it could have gone either way.
Nowadays, in the world of Wikileaks and Snowdon, we no longer need fear prior restraint. The internet has taken care of that. This is fortunate because, as Rudenstine shows, the Federal judiciary in 1971 still functioned to legal and Constitutional standards. Such even handedness could hardly be expected today with a judiciary packed with political lackeys. A large part of the joy in reading TDTPS comes from the light Rudenstine shines into the minds of the attorneys and judges. The minds of justices who today hold that corporations are people must be much darker places.
U. S. District Judge Murray I. Gurfein: “A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater value of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know.”
Probably like most people, I had viewed the Pentagon Papers case as the government’s attempt to simply avoid embarrassment. Rudenstine makes clear that this was hardly the truth. The government had quite legitimate concerns. I also seemed to believe that the failure of the government to obtain injunctive relief was inevitable. TDTPS shows this presumption is not at all true. Minimally fettered freedom of the press really hung in the balance in the summer of 1971 and it could have gone either way.
Nowadays, in the world of Wikileaks and Snowdon, we no longer need fear prior restraint. The internet has taken care of that. This is fortunate because, as Rudenstine shows, the Federal judiciary in 1971 still functioned to legal and Constitutional standards. Such even handedness could hardly be expected today with a judiciary packed with political lackeys. A large part of the joy in reading TDTPS comes from the light Rudenstine shines into the minds of the attorneys and judges. The minds of justices who today hold that corporations are people must be much darker places.
U. S. District Judge Murray I. Gurfein: “A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater value of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know.”
September 11, 2018
The details in this book is incredible. A full blown account of the Pentagon Papers from multiple points of view.
February 13, 2015
Not, perhaps, the easiest book to read for someone without a law degree (as your reviewer here discovered), but a thought-provoking work all the same -- especially for its general lesson that history is made as much by bad decisions, omissions, hesitations, stumblings, and fumblings, as it is by any active or well-reasoned choices on the part of any of its principal and secondary actors at any given time.
November 11, 2007
This was written by my Constitutinal Law Professor from Cardozo (now the Dean of the Law School). It is an incredible book and he is a fantastic teacher.
March 31, 2011
The back cover categorizes The Day the Presses Stopped as "Law/American History/Politics". Anyone who is interested in any of these subjects will love this book.
Read
May 12, 2017A really interesting look at the history of the Pentagon Papers case, which is something that more people today could probably stand to know about. Really, it's looking like anybody trying to deal with the current president should really take a hard look at the Nixon era. The current occupant of the white house doesn't seem any more sensitive or irascible than that gentleman of old. Just sayin'.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews