Final answer:
The Supreme Court treats prior restraint as a severe limitation on freedom of the press and expression, allowing it only under exceptional circumstances. Landmark cases such as Near v. Minnesota and New York Times Co. v. United States have reinforced that the government bears a heavy burden to justify any form of prior restraint.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Supreme Court has historically set a high bar for prior restraint, emphasizing the importance of freedom of the press and freedom of expression. The Court's view is that government action can rarely justify stopping someone from speaking or publishing in advance. This was articulated in the landmark case of Near v. Minnesota, where the Court struck down a state law as unconstitutional because it allowed prior restraint. The principle was reaffirmed in the Pentagon Papers case, formally known as New York Times Co. v. United States, where the Court refused to prevent the publication of classified materials on the grounds that the government had not met the heavy burden required for prior restraint.
Despite the recognition of certain circumstances where prior restraint might be permissible, such as in cases involving national security or obscenity, the Supreme Court has generally held that civil or criminal proceedings after the fact are more appropriate than prior restraints, which are seen as a form of censorship.