What was the constitutional issue that brought US v. Nixon to the Supreme Court?

Answer 1

United States v. Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974)

President Nixon refused to give the Special Prosecutor (Leon Jaworski) in the Watergate Scandal tapes of recorded telephone calls between the President and various people implicated in the crime and its cover-up. Nixon attempted to invoke Executive Privilege, a constitutional protection allowing the Executive branch to withhold information from the Legislative and Judicial branches, under separation of powers.

The Supreme Court held that Nixon had to give Jaworski the tapes, because withholding them interfered with the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of the defendants being charged in the case. Nixon's status was considered that of an unindicted conspirator, and that the US Supreme Court had jurisdiction over the case. This decision affirmed one of the Judicial branch's checks on the Executive branch.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 2

United States v. Nixon, (1974) involved the disposition of taped conversations between President Nixon and various members of the White House staff regarding the Watergate scandal, the administration's criminal conspiracy to obstruct an investigation of the break-in at Democratic campaign headquarters in the Watergate complex, in Washington, D.C.

Background

On June 17, 1972, five members of the Nixon re-election campaign broke into the Democratic campaign headquarters in the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C., to steal important files relevant to the upcoming election.

When the crime was discovered, President Nixon promised the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would appoint Archibald Cox as independent counsel to investigate the break-in.

In the course of the investigation, Cox subpoenaed Nixon for copies of eight tapes containing conversations recorded in the Oval Office. The President refused to comply with the subpoena, claiming executive privilege gave him immunity from releasing sensitive information. He instead offered a compromise in which he would allow Senator John Stennis (D-MS), a respected member of Congress, to review the tapes and summarize their content for the prosecutor. Nixon claimed he didn't want the tapes or transcripts on the public record because he had used foul language and uttered racial slurs during the conversations. The President's resistance implicated him as being involved in the cover-up of the Watergate break-in, making him part of a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice.

When Cox refused the compromise, Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. When the men refused to comply with the Executive order, they were forced to resign their positions. The removal of Cox, Richardson and Ruckelshaus later became known as the "Saturday Night Massacre."

Due to strong public pressure, Nixon was forced to appoint a new prosecutor to the investigation, Leon Jaworski.

Jaworski went to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and obtained a subpeona from Judge John Sirica ordering Nixon to release tapes and documents associated with the Watergate investigation. Nixon responded by returning 43 edited and typed transcripts of the White House telephone conversations, only 20 of which were among those requested in the court order.

Nixon's counsel then filed a motion in District Court requesting Sirica quash the subpoena. Sirica denied the motion and ordered the President to provide Jaworski with the required material by May 31, 1974.

Supreme Court Ruling

Both parties appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Nixon's attorney argued the matter was outside the Court's jurisdiction because it involved incidents occurring exclusively within the Executive branch. He also claimed Nixon had absolute executive privilege to protect the content of the tapes.

Chief Justice Warren Burger delivered the unanimous (8-0; Justice Rehnquist recused himself for conflict of interest) opinion of the Court proclaiming the judiciary did, indeed, have jurisdiction over 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 further rejected the claim of unqualified executive privilege, and implied Nixon could be found in contempt by refusing to produce the evidence. Nixon's rights under this criminal investigation were no greater than that of any other person.

The Court also remarked that only the Attorney General had the authority to revoke the Special Prosecutor's commission but, because they refused to do so, the Executive branch was bound by the prosecutor's request, and the other two branches of government were bound to enforce it.

Nixon reluctantly complied with the ruling.

Under threat of impeachment and probable prosecution in the Senate, which would remove him from office, Nixon chose to resign in August 1974.

This case further established the power of the Supreme Court to act as a check on the Executive branch of government.

Additional Notes

Nixon had appointed four Supreme Court Justices, three of whom participated in the unanimous vote to affirm the District Court's decision: Chief Justice Burger and Justices Blackmun, Powell and Rehnquist (who recused himself). Ironically, Nixon chose these four individuals because of their hard-line conservative stance on issues.

The Nixon administration engaged in more legal confrontation over the extent of Executive power than any other administration. Other cases against Nixon's orders and policies included:

United States v. U.S. District Court, 407 US 297 (1972)

The Court upheld the Fourth Amendment in limiting the government's ability to conduct surveillance on people labeled domestic terrorists. This particular case dealt with wire-tapping the phones of three people conspiring to destroy government property. The ruling established the precedent that law enforcement must obtain a warrant to engage in electronic surveillance.

Train v. City of New York, 420 US 35 (1975)

The Court held that President Nixon had exceeded his authority by refusing to distribute 18 billion dollars in state aid Congress allocated under the Water Pollution Control Act.

New York Times v. United States, 403 US 713 (1971)

In a Per Curiam decision, the Supreme Court upheld the District and Circuit courts' ruling that Nixon did not have executive authority to exercise prior restraint against The New York Times and The Washington Post to prevent them from publishing parts of a Department of Defense report colloquially known as the "Pentagon Papers."

Case Citation:

United States v. Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974)

To read the Court's opinion on United States v. Nixonor listen to copies of the original Watergate audio tapes, see Related Links, below.

Answer 3

United States v. Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974)

Answer

The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.

The Supreme Court decided the constitutional protection of the defendants accused of conspiracy superseded the President's claim of Executive Privilege, under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.

Explanation

In US v. Nixon, then-President Nixon had a collection of secret audio tapes containing conversations deemed relevant to the Watergate investigation. The Special Prosecutor in charge of the investigation, Leon Jaworski, subpoenaed the tapes as evidence of conspiracy between top level government officials and the President. Nixon was labeled an unindicted conspirator, making him a subject of legitimate scrutiny.

President Nixon refused to produce the tapes, claiming he was immune from the subpoena under the doctrine of Executive Privilege, the implied constitutional right of the President to withhold information from the other branches of government (Article II). According to Nixon, the conversations were intra-branch, protected by the Separation of Powers, and non-justiciable (not amenable to resolution by a court) because the court lacked jurisdiction over the communications.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of Executive Privilege in general, but held that it did not provide absolute and unqualified protection, except possibly in the case of military and diplomatic affairs, which were irrelevant to the case. The Court also argued the judiciary had jurisdiction over the matter under Article III because the constitution was not intended to protect the President from legitimate criminal prosecution.

In response to an argument that Special Counsel Leon Jaworski didn't have authority to subpoena the tapes, the Court held that 28 USC Sec 503 made the Attorney General head of the Department of Justice, charged with investigating and prosecuting crimes. Congress provided that the AG could delegate authority to the Special Prosecutor, and that Nixon could not rescind this power.

Further, the fundamental demands of Fifth Amendment Due Process and Sixth Amendment Confrontation of the witness or evidence against the accused superseded President Nixon's Executive Privilege.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 4

The US Supreme Court voted unanimously, 8-0 (Justice Rehnquist recused himself for conflict of interest), to affirm the District Court ruling upholding the legality of Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski's subpoena for the Watergate tapes.

The Court ordered Nixon to relinquish the tapes, citing the constitutional rights of the six men accused of conspiracy, under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.

Constitutional Argument

In US v. Nixon, then-President Nixon had a collection of secret audio tapes containing conversations deemed relevant to the Watergate investigation. The Special Prosecutor in charge of the investigation, Leon Jaworski, subpoenaed the tapes as evidence of conspiracy between top level government officials and the President. Nixon was labeled an unindicted conspirator, making him a subject of legitimate scrutiny.

President Nixon refused to produce the tapes, claiming he was immune from the subpoena under the doctrine of Executive Privilege, the implied constitutional right of the President to withhold information from the other branches of government (Article II). According to Nixon, the conversations were intra-branch, protected by the Separation of Powers, and non-justiciable (not amenable to resolution by a court) because the court lacked jurisdiction over the communications.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of Executive Privilege in general, but held that it did not provide absolute and unqualified protection, except possibly in the case of military and diplomatic affairs, which were irrelevant to the case. The Court also argued the judiciary had jurisdiction over the matter under Article III because the constitution was not intended to protect the President from legitimate criminal prosecution.

In response to an argument that Special Counsel Leon Jaworski didn't have authority to subpoena the tapes, the Court held that 28 USC Sec 503 made the Attorney General head of the Department of Justice, charged with investigating and prosecuting crimes. Congress provided that the AG could delegate authority to the Special Prosecutor, and that Nixon could not rescind this power.

Further, the fundamental demands of Fifth Amendment Due Process and Sixth Amendment Confrontation of the witness or evidence against the accused superseded President Nixon's Executive Privilege.

Case Citation:

United States v. Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974)

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 5

Nixon v. United States is not related to the case involving former President Richard Nixon.

Two different cases have been filed with the US Supreme Court titled Nixon v. United States. The first was former President Richard Nixon's appeal of a US District Court ruling ordering him to turn over the Watergate tapes to special prosecutor Leon Jaworski, in 1974. That case was consolidated into United States v. Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974), and is always referred to as such. For more information about the Watergate case, see Related Questions, below.

The other Nixon ruling listed in United States Reports (the official volumes containing US Supreme Court opinions) is Nixon v. United States, 506 US 224 (1993). This case is not related to former President Nixon, but to an impeached Mississippi US District Court judge, Walter Nixon, who appealed the Senate's impeachment ruling to the US Supreme Court. In that case, the Court determined that impeachment proceedings are non-justiciable, and are political matters, or the province of Congress. The 1993 Nixon case set a formal precedent preventing impeached officials from appealing their impeachment in court.

William Rehnquist wrote the opinion of a unanimous Court. Justices Stevens, White and Souter wrote concurring opinions.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 6

President Nixon refused to cooperate with Leon Jaworski, the special prosecutor he appointed to investigate the Watergate cover-up. Watergate was the Washington, DC, building that housed the US Democratic Party headquarters that was broken into prior to the 1972 Presidential election. Nixon recorded secret telephone conversations he had about the cover-up and investigation.

Archibald Cox subpoenaed the tapes as evidence for his investigation; Nixon refused on the ground of Executive Privilege, believing he could refuse to disclose the content of the conversations due to his status as President. Cox got a court order from Judge John Sirrica of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ordering Nixon to release the tapes to the prosecutor. Nixon appealed the decision.

The US Supreme Court heard the case on direct appeal from the US District Court because it was a matter of national importance and involved constitutional interpretation. After hearing arguments, the Court issued a per curiam (unsigned, but legally valid) decision upholding the District Court order.

Nixon surrendered the tapes, then resigned several weeks later (August 9, 1974) to avoid impeachment by the House of Representatives. Gerald Ford, his successor as President, later pardoned Nixon.

Case Citation:

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 7

In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), the Supreme Court, in and 8-0 landslide decision, held that "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 the law; and the president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is "demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial." Justice Rehnquist recused himself, while Chief Justice Burger, also a Nixon appointee, wrote the decision. This unprecedented unanimous decision paved the way for impeachment and criminal prosecution. President Ford's pardon eliminated any possibility for such.