Author: Carla Anthony

Case Title:

United States v Nixon, President of the United States, et al.

Citation:

418 U.S. 683; 94 S. Ct. 3090; 41 L. Ed. 2d 1039 (1974)

Bench:

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justice Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, and Powell. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Facts:

This landmark case involves the dispute between the President Richard Nixon and the United States regarding the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters located in the Watergate complex. Following an investigation seven individuals was indicted by a federal grand jury many of whom held high ranking positions in the White House for conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct justice. President Richard Nixon was named by the grand jury as an unindicted co-conspirator.

Special Prosecutor, Leon Jaworski requested a subpoena deuces tecum under the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 1(c) to compel President Nixon to produce specific tape recordings and documents about his meetings with various assistants and advisors. Although Nixon publicly released edited transcripts of some conversations, he moved to quash the subpoena, claiming executive privilege to protect the confidentiality of presidential communications.

The motion to quash the subpoena was denied by the District Court, rejecting the President’s arguments that the dispute was non-justiciable and that the judiciary lacked authority to review his claim of privilege. Both the Special Prosecutor and the President sought immediate review, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgement due to the “public importance of the issue presented and the need for their prompt resolution”.

Issues:

Several critical constitutional and procedural questions was addressed by the Supreme Court, such as:

• Was the dispute between the Special Prosecutor and the President a non-justiciable “intra-branch” conflict within the Executive Branch?
• Was the District Court’s order to produce the tapes an appealable “final order” given that the President has not yet been held in contempt?
• Does the President possess an absolute, unqualified constitutional privilege of immunity from judicial process?
• If a privilege exists, does a generalized interest in confidentiality prevail over the specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial?
• Rule 17(c) – Did the Special Prosecutor meet the necessary legal standards of relevancy, admissibility, and specificity to justify the subpoena?

Arguments

Appellant: President Richard Nixon

President Nixon’s counsel argued that the judiciary lacked the power to compel the production of the tapes for the following reasons:

The President’s counsel’s argument was that the conflict was a jurisdictional disagreement between a superior (the President) and a subordinate (the Special Prosecutor) within the Executive Branch. Thus it is not subject to judicial resolution.

The President argued that the separation of powers doctrine implies an absolute privilege of confidentiality for all presidential communications. He also argued that determining the scope of executive privilege was the President’s job, not the courts and that the need for candid advice from assistance would be stifled if such conversations were subject to public dissemination or judicial review.

Respondent: The United States (Special Prosecutor)

The government, represented by the Special Prosecutor, contended:

The Attorney General conferred upon the Special Prosecutor unique authority and tenure to present the United States as well as granting the power to contest claims of executive privilege in court.

The Special Prosecutor argued, even if a presumptive privilege existed, it must yield to the specific need for evidence in a criminal trial, basically implying this need outweighs the privilege. Furthermore, he argued that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment Clauses guarantees of a fair trial and the right to compulsory process require the production of all relevant facts and that it is the duty of the courts to vindicate those guarantees, and to accomplish that it is essential that all relevant and admissible evidence be produces. The Special Prosecutor made reference to the principle established in Marbury v Madison, it is the duty of the courts to define what the law is, including the scope of constitutional privileges.

Judgement:

In a unanimous decision the Court held that President Nixon must deliver the subpoenaed materials to the District Court for an in-chambers inspection by the judge.

The Court concluded that:

• The dispute presented a justiciable controversy due to the fact that the Special Prosecutor was granted specific, independent authority by regulation to seek such evidence.
• Although the President’s communications are presumptively privileged, this privilege is not absolute.
• The generalized interest in keeping presidential communications confidential has to give way to a demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial to ensure the fair administration of justice.

Legal Reasoning and Personal Commentary:

Legal Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning centered on the balance between executive confidentiality and the requirements of the judicial system. While the presumptive privilege for presidential communications was acknowledged taking into consideration the separation of powers and the need for candid advice between the President and his assistants, the notion that this privilege is absolute was rejected.

The principle under Marbury v Madison, the court reaffirmed that it is the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Thus the Court and not the President defines the scope of executive privilege.

The Court found that the Special Prosecutor had cleared the three hurdles for a pretrial subpoena namely, relevancy, admissibility, and specificity. The records showed a sufficient likelihood that the tapes contained conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment.

Personal commentary:

This case serves as a landmark case when it comes to the Rule of Law, establishing that no person, including the President is above the law. Although this case was not in Nixon’s favor and later resulted in his resignation, this case expanded the formal power of the presidency. For the first time the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that a constitutional executive privilege does exist, which resolved decades of legal ambiguity.

The presumptive privilege has now provided future presidents with a legal shield for their communications, provided that those communications do not conflict with fundamental demands of due process in criminal proceedings such as this case. The Court’s cautious approach allowed it to resolve a high stakes dispute without permanently weakening the executive’s ability to receive candid advice.