United States v. Nixon
- This is about the 1974 case on the powers of President Richard Nixon. For the 1993 impeachment of Judge Walter Nixon, see Nixon v. United States.
| United States v. Nixon | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued July 8, 1974 Decided July 24, 1974 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Richard Milhous Nixon, President of the United States, et al. |
| Citations | 418 U.S. 683 (more) 94 S. Ct. 3090; 41 L. Ed. 2d 1039; 1974 U.S. LEXIS 93 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Cert. before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
| Holding | |
| The Supreme Court does have the final voice in determining constitutional questions; no person, not even the President of the United States, is completely above law; and the president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is 'demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial.' | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Burger, joined by Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell |
| Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision. It was a unanimous 8-0 ruling involving President Richard Nixon and important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal. It is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president.
Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger wrote the opinion for a unanimous court, joined by Justices William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and Lewis F. Powell. Associate (later Chief) Justice William Rehnquist recused himself and took no part in deciding the case.
History
The Watergate scandal began during the 1972 presidential campaign between Democratic Senator George McGovern of South Dakota and the Republican President Richard Nixon. On June 17, months before the election which Nixon won by a wide margin, a group of burglars broke into Democratic headquarters located in the Watergate building complex in Washington, D.C. After investigating the story, the Washington Post suggested the break in could be traced to officials in the Nixon administration. The administration denied all charges, but it steadily became more apparent that members of the administration and perhaps Nixon himself had been involved in an attempt to cover up the burglary.
Public and congressional pressure forced Nixon to appoint a special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, to look into the matter. Cox filed a subpoena to secure tapes Nixon had secretly taped in the Oval Office of the White House which he believed would shed light on the Watergate burglary. Furious, Nixon refused the request and immediately had Cox fired (Saturday Night Massacre). However, public outrage forced Nixon to appoint a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski. Jaworski was charged with the responsibility of conducting the Watergate investigation for the government.
On March 1, 1974 a grand jury indicted U.S. Attorney General John N. Mitchell and six other persons, all senior Nixon administration officials or members of the Committee to Re-elect the President. They were charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice by covering up White House involvement in the break-in at Democratic headquarters in the Watergate complex. Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator.
In April 1974, Jaworski obtained a subpoena ordering Nixon to release certain tapes and papers related to specific meetings between the President and those indicted by the grand jury. Those tapes and the conversations they revealed were believed to contain damaging evidence involving the indicted men and perhaps the President himself.
Hoping Jaworski and the public would be satisfied, Nixon turned over edited transcripts of forty-three conversations, including portions of twenty conversations demanded by the subpoena. James D. St. Clair, Nixon's attorney, then requested Judge John Sirica of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to quash the subpoena. Sirica denied St. Clair's motion and ordered the president to turn the tapes over by May 31.
Both St. Clair and Jaworski appealed directly to the Supreme Court which heard arguments on July 8. St. Clair argued the matter should not be subject to "judicial resolution" since the matter was a dispute within the executive branch. The branch should resolve the dispute itself. Also, he claimed Special Prosecutor Jaworski had not proven the requested materials were absolutely necessary for the trial of the seven men. Besides, he claimed Nixon had an absolute executive privilege to protect communications "between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them" in carrying out their duties.
Less than three weeks later the Court issued its decision. The justices struggled to write an opinion that all eight could agree to. The stakes were so high, in that the tapes most likely contained evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the President and his men, that they wanted no dissent. All contributed to the opinion and Chief Justice Burger delivered the unanimous decision. After ruling that the Court could indeed resolve the matter and that Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment," the Court went to the main issue of executive privilege. The Court rejected Nixon's claim to an absolute, unqualified executive privilege from the judicial process under all circumstances.
Case
Archibald Cox, an investigator in the Watergate case, obtained a subpoena to obtain documentation of meetings held in President Nixon's offices, related to the Watergate break-ins and subsequent coverup. Cox's successor, Leon Jaworski, subsequently pursued that subpoena, and Nixon refused access to the tapes and as justification claimed their confidentiality was protected by executive privilege. Jaworski sought further court orders, and the Supreme Court accepted the case. The White House stated that Nixon would abide by "a definitive order" by the court.
The unanimous decision held that the Supreme Court has not only the power established in Marbury v. Madison to rule a law invalid for conflicting with constitutional provisions but also power to decide how the Constitution limits the President's powers; that the Constitution provides for laws enforceable on a president; and that executive privilege does not apply to "demonstrably relevant" evidence in criminal cases.
Nixon and the Supreme Court
In the presidential campaign of 1968, Richard Nixon promised to reshape the Supreme Court. The Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren had taken what many, including Nixon, felt was a liberal turn, being too sympathetic to defendants in the criminal justice system. Determined to move the Court toward his more conservative views, Nixon appointed four justices including, upon Warren's retirement, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in 1969. Burger had been a hard line, tough-on-criminals judge in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Nixon also appointed Harry A. Blackmun in 1970, and Lewis F. Powell, Jr., and William H. Rehnquist, both in 1971. In the year 2000, only Rehnquist remained on the Court, serving as its chief justice from 1986 to 2005.
Nixon's presidency saw more legal confrontations with the Court over presidential powers than any other administration. Although four justices were his appointees, Nixon was dealt a series of setbacks from the Court in the 1970s. In United States v. U.S. District Court (1972) the Court rejected 8-0 Nixon's claim of presidential power to carry out electronic surveillance (wire-tapping) without a court warrant in order to investigate suspected subversive activities. In a catastrophic decision for Nixon in United States v. Nixon (1974), the Court voted 8–0 to reject Nixon's claim of executive privilege in withholding tape recordings in the Watergate scandal. Nixon resigned his presidency only weeks after the ruling.
During his presidency, Nixon had claimed broad authority to impound funds provided by Congress. In 1975, the Court in Train v. City of New York ruled unanimously that Nixon had overstepped his authority when he had refused to distribute $18 billion in state aid under the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.
Quotes
- "The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment." — James D. St. Clair, Richard Nixon's counsel, arguing before the Supreme Court
- "Mr. St. Clair, what public interest is there in preserving secrecy with respect to a criminal conspiracy?" —Justice Lewis Powell during oral arguments
- "Neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisors calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises."—Chief Justice Warren Burger
See also
References
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (Supreme Court opinion at FindLaw)
- Watergate Supreme Court Cases Reference
- Oral argument and opinion announcement listen to audio recordings at oyez.org