The decision by a Westchester judge barring The New York Times from publishing information about a notorious right-wing organization, Project Veritas, and ordering The Times to destroy information it already had published, has been described as "dangerous," "outrageous," "jaw-dropping," and "unheard of." Judge Charles Wood's issuance of a prior restraint on the press—ironically on the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in New York Times Co. v. United States (the Pentagon Papers case), which held unconstitutional any prior restraint on the press except when publication could result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to the Nation—is unprecedented. But as far as I can tell, no commentator has fully examined the asserted legal and constitutional basis for his decision. Did Judge Wood carefully analyze legal issues correctly? Was his reasoning coherent, logical, and based on a correct application of law? Did he cite legal authority carefully and responsibly?