Nixon v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with United States v. Nixon, the 1974 case on the powers of President Richard Nixon.
Nixon v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 14, 1992
Decided January 13, 1993
Full case name Walter L. Nixon, Petitioner v. United States, et al.
Citations 506 U.S. 224 (more)
113 S. Ct. 732; 122 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 834; 61 U.S.L.W. 4069; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 279; 93 Daily Journal DAR 574; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 821
Prior history 744 F.Supp. 9 (D.D.C. 1990), aff'd, 938 F.2d 239 (D.C. Cir. 1991), cert. granted, 502 U.S. 1090 (1992)
Subsequent history None
Argument Oral argument
Holding
The contention that Senate committees appointed to gather evidence in an impeachment trial are unconstitutional is nonjusticiable, because impeachment is a political question.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Rehnquist, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
Concurrence Stevens
Concurrence White, joined by Blackmun
Concurrence Souter
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Art. I

Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993),[1] was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that the question of whether the Senate had properly tried an impeachment was a political question, and could not be resolved in the Courts.

Facts[edit]

In this case, a United States federal judge named Walter Nixon was convicted of committing perjury before a grand jury, but refused to resign from office even after he had been incarcerated. Nixon was subsequently impeached by the United States House of Representatives, and the matter was referred to the United States Senate for a vote on Nixon's removal. The Senate appointed a committee to hear the evidence against Nixon, and then report to the body as a whole. The Senate then heard the report of the committee and voted to remove Nixon from office. Nixon contended that this did not meet the constitutional requirement of Article I that the case be "tried by the Senate."

Holding[edit]

The majority opinion (the court's decision was unanimous, although four separate opinions were published) held that the courts may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer because the Constitution reserves that function to a coordinate political branch. Article I. Sec. 3 of the Constitution gave the Senate the "sole power to try all impeachments". Because of the word "sole" it is clear that the judicial branch was not to be included. Furthermore, because the word "try" was originally understood to include fact-finding committees, there was a textually demonstrable commitment to give broad discretion to the Senate in impeachments.

Furthermore the Framers believed that representatives of the people should try impeachments and the Court was too small to justly try impeachments. Also, the judicial branch is "checked" by impeachments, so that judicial involvement in impeachments might violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

The Court further ruled that involving the judiciary would prevent finality without clear remedy, and bias post-impeachment criminal or civil prosecutions which the Constitution explicitly allows.

Justices White, Blackmun and Souter concurred, but voiced concern that the Court was foreclosing this area for review. While they found that the Senate did all that was constitutionally required, they were concerned that the Court should have the power to review cases where the Senate removed an impeached officer summarily without a hearing, or through some arbitrary process, such as "a coin toss".

An important feature of this case is how it diverges from Powell v. McCormack. In Powell, a grant of discretionary power to Congress was deemed to be justiciable because it required a mere "interpretation" of the Constitution.

See also[edit]

External links[edit]

  1. ^ 506 U.S. 224 (Text of the opinion on Findlaw.com)