0
The court of original jurisdiction in this case was US District Court for the District of Columbia, presided over by Judge John Sirica.
The Judge approved Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski's subpoena on the grounds that neither Executive Privilege nor Separation of Powers between the branches of government were sufficient to abrogate the six accused conspirators' constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. Nixon was ordered to give Jaworski the tapes.
Nixon appealed the decision, but the US Supreme Court ultimately affirmed Sirica's ruling.
(Sirica was Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1973)
Case Citation:
United States v. Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974)
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
What else can I help you with?
What did the Supreme Court rule in the Watergate case?
The Watergate Case was filed as United States v. Nixon,418 US 683 (1974)The US Supreme Court voted unanimously, 8-0 (Justice Rehnquist recused himself for conflict of interest), to order President Nixon to surrender the Watergate tapes to Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski. The decision affirmed the District Court ruling upholding the legality of Jaworski's subpoena for the Watergate tapes in the face of Nixon's claim of Executive Privilege.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 ArgumentIn 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.
How was Watergate an example of checks and balances?
The Watergate Scandal represented a constitutional crisis. Checks and balances, and the rule of law prevailed, with the Congress and Supreme Court acting against abuses of power by the presidency. Congress was prepared to draft Articles of Impeachment and the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon must release the tapes.
How did the court rule in plessy?
It constitutionaliszed the "Seprate, but Equal" doctrine.
On what basis did the court rule that Scott was not a citizen?
On account his race. The Court declared that a black person could not be a citizen of anywhere.
What is the Rule of Four in the US Supreme Court?
The Rule of Four means four of the nine justices must agree to hear a case in order for it to be accepted on appeal. If four or more justices think the case is worth the Court's time, then the Supreme Court will issue a writ of certiorari to the lower court ordering them to send the case files to the Supreme Court, and the case will be placed on the docket.
What is jurisdiction court?
"Jurisdiction"simply means "to say the law" so basically any legitimate court is one of jurisdiction because has the right to deal with legal matters. I suppose you are specifically referring to a court of original jurisdiction, which is one that hears trials as they are brought by a prosecutor or plaintiff. This contrasts a court of appellate jurisdiction, better known as a court of appeals, which rule on cases that have already been decided by a lower/original jurisdiction court. A court of appeals looks at the validity of the judgment (civil) or verdict (criminal). Some appellate courts however, such as the US Supreme Court, have other powers such as judicial review and can even hear cases of original jurisdiction if one of the parties to the case is an ambassador, president, etc.
What is court of jurisdiction?
"Jurisdiction"simply means "to say the law" so basically any legitimate court is one of jurisdiction because has the right to deal with legal matters. I suppose you are specifically referring to a court of original jurisdiction, which is one that hears trials as they are brought by a prosecutor or plaintiff. This contrasts a court of appellate jurisdiction, better known as a court of appeals, which rule on cases that have already been decided by a lower/original jurisdiction court. A court of appeals looks at the validity of the judgment (civil) or verdict (criminal). Some appellate courts however, such as the US Supreme Court, have other powers such as judicial review and can even hear cases of original jurisdiction if one of the parties to the case is an ambassador, president, etc.
Which jurisdiction allows only one court to rule on specific subject matters?
Exclusive jurisdiction
Do federal courts have original jurisdiction?
Yes. Original jurisdiction means the court is first to hear a case; these are often called trial courts. Appellate jurisdiction means the court reviews a case already tried in a lower court to determine whether the law and constitution were properly applied. The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between the states. Under the Constitution, the Court also has original jurisdiction in cases involving ambassadors and other foreign dignitaries, but it shares jurisdiction with the US District Courts, which currently hear those cases. The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over cases involving preserved federal questions from both state and federal courts. A "federal question" means the case involves matters related to federal or constitutional law or US treaties. "Preserved" means the "federal question" has been raised at the trial and each stage of the appeals process.
Does an appeals court have the power to overturn a school's rule e.g If a family sued the school in Appeals court?
You cannot sue anyone in a Court of Appeals. You must bring suit in a court of original jurisdiction - in this case that would be the Circuit Court in which the school system is located.
The authority of a court to rule on certain cases?
The authority of a court to rule on certain cases is known as the jurisdiction of the court. State courts have jurisdiction over matters within that state, and different levels of courts have jurisdiction over lawsuits involving different amounts of money. Federal courts have jurisdiction over lawsuits between citizens of different states, or cases based on federal statutes.
Can a judge over rule a court order from another state's court?
Generally, no. The court where the decree was issued has jurisdiction.Generally, no. The court where the decree was issued has jurisdiction.Generally, no. The court where the decree was issued has jurisdiction.Generally, no. The court where the decree was issued has jurisdiction.
What did the supreme court case US v Nixon confirmed?
The rule of law over executive privilege.
What is the nature of jurisdiction when a court first entertains a case before the Bench?
The first time a case goes before the Bench, in Anglo-American law, that is, when the case goes before the court for consideration, as a general rule, the court takes jurisdiction to decide if it has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, the power of the court to act concerning the matters before it is the more or less basis for any court's power to act in Anglo-American law.* Basically, there are two major types of jurisdiction: AT THE TRIAL LEVEL subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. As a general rule, a person can submit to the authority of the court and effectively agree that the court's decision binds the person; however, the subject matter jurisdiction of the court is established by statutes that is laws made by legislaturs or constitutions. Subject matter jurisdiction is not something which parties can agree to for a court to act on. Courts have limitations on what they can decide about. Another way to say it is that if a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, the parties cant agree for the court to make decisions in that area. Example, a probate court, or a small claims court cant grant a divorce no matter how much the parties involved want the probate or small claims court to grant the divorce or how much the parties agree for the probate court or small claims court to grant a divorce or how willing the parties are for the court's ruling to be binding on them personally with the court's decision about the divorce. Courts cant take subject matter jurisdiction where they dont have it in the first place;they can always take jurisdiction of the case to decide if they have subject matter jurisdiction to act. They are taking jurisdiction to decide if they have jurisdiction. *Anglo-American law is the results of legal systems and ways of jurisprudential thinking which has developed as a results of an long cultural and legal association between the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
Why must the US Supreme Court sometimes wait for years before it can rule in an area?
The Supreme Court can't rule on an issue until it has been legitimately legally challenged in a court of original jurisdiction and all lower court appeals have been exhausted (with a few exceptions). A legitimate legal challenge requires a plaintiff who has been damaged by application of a law or policy, or a proxy who has standing to bring suit on behalf of one or more people who have been damaged.
Does original jurisdiction means to hear a case first?
Yes. The court with original jurisdiction, a trial court, is the first to hear a case and acts as a "trier of fact," examining evidence, listening to witness and expert testimony, and considering attorney arguments. The information is used to decide whether the prosecution (in a criminal trial) has proven its case "beyond a reasonable doubt." Appellate courts are not authorized to dispute accepted facts in a case, and only rule on whether the trial was fair and the laws applied were constitutional.
When is actor sequitur forum rei rule applied?
Literally in Latin it means - The actor (performer) must follow the forum of the thing.In legal use - The plaintiff must follow the forum of the thing in dispute or the suit.Which means - When seeking a determination in a dispute, the person making the complaint must use the procedures for jurisdiction of the person who is defending themselves. bouvier()Applied when a suit is presented in the wrong venue.
