United States v. Nixon
418 U.S. 683 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The President's generalized assertion of executive privilege, which is rooted in the need for confidentiality in communications, is not absolute and must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
Facts:
- A grand jury returned an indictment against seven individuals, including former aides and advisors to President Richard Nixon, for offenses including conspiracy to defraud the United States and to obstruct justice.
- The grand jury named President Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator.
- In preparation for the trial of the seven individuals, the Special Prosecutor determined that tape recordings of conversations involving the President were necessary as evidence.
- The Special Prosecutor had knowledge of the specific meetings and conversations from White House daily logs and appointment records.
- President Nixon publicly released edited transcripts of 43 conversations, but the Special Prosecutor sought the original, unedited tapes.
- The President, through his counsel, claimed that the tapes were protected by an absolute executive privilege.
Procedural Posture:
- The Special Prosecutor, representing the United States, obtained a subpoena duces tecum from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ordering President Nixon to produce specified tape recordings and documents.
- The President's counsel filed a motion in the District Court to quash the subpoena, asserting absolute executive privilege.
- The District Court denied the motion to quash and ordered the President to produce the materials for an in-camera inspection.
- The President filed a timely notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
- The Special Prosecutor then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the high court to hear the case immediately.
- The President filed a cross-petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment.
- The Supreme Court granted both petitions, bringing the case directly before it for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the President's generalized assertion of executive privilege prevail over a subpoena duces tecum issued in a criminal proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. A President's generalized assertion of privilege based on the need for confidential communications cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The Court first established that the dispute was a justiciable controversy, despite it being between two officers of the Executive Branch, because the Attorney General's regulations granted the Special Prosecutor unique authority and independence, creating a concrete case. The Court then reaffirmed its authority under Marbury v. Madison to say what the law is, rejecting the President's claim that the separation of powers doctrine gives the Executive an absolute, unreviewable privilege. While acknowledging a presumptive, constitutionally based privilege for Presidential communications to ensure candid advice, the Court held that this privilege is not absolute. An absolute privilege would gravely impair the function of the courts under Article III. The Court balanced the President's generalized interest in confidentiality against the specific, constitutional need for evidence in a criminal trial, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Court concluded that the need for evidence in a criminal proceeding outweighs the general claim of privilege and ordered the subpoenaed material be submitted to the District Court for in-camera review to determine what is relevant and admissible.
Analysis:
This landmark decision firmly established that the President is not above the law, setting a crucial limit on the scope of executive privilege. It reinforced the judiciary's role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, even when faced with a claim of executive power. The ruling created a precedent that a generalized claim of executive privilege, not involving military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, must yield to the specific needs of a criminal investigation. This balancing test ensures that the core functions of the criminal justice system are not frustrated by a broad, undifferentiated assertion of presidential confidentiality.
