United States v. Nixon
418 U.S. 683 (1974)
Background Summary & Questions
In 1972, five burglars were caught breaking into the Democratic National Headquarters in the
Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. Among other activities, the Democratic National
Headquarters was responsible for raising money for and coordinating campaigns for Democratic
candidates, including the presidential candidate. Media and government investigations
discovered that the burglars were connected to the White House, which at the time was occupied
by President Richard Nixon, a Republican. In addition, these investigations revealed that the
president and his aides probably had abused their power in other ways as well.
Congress held hearings on the scandal to investigate wrongdoing by the president and his aides.
During those hearings, the public discovered that President Nixon had installed a tape recorder in
the Oval Office. These tape recordings probably had conversations between the president and his
aides that could support some of the accusations against them. The special prosecutor in charge
of the case wanted to hear these tapes, but President Nixon did not want to give them up.
President Nixon even had the special prosecutor removed from his job to stop him from
obtaining the tapes. However, the next special prosecutor also requested them. This time a
federal court judge ruled that the president had to hand over the tape recordings.
In response, the president released edited transcripts and shortened versions of the tapes, but
these were not good enough to meet the court order. The special prosecutor again challenged the
president in the United States District Court. The District Court again ruled against the president
and ordered him to give up the complete tapes. When the president appealed the District Court's
ruling to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, the special prosecutor asked the United
States Supreme Court to step in and settle the dispute. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the
case.
Before the Supreme Court, Nixon's lawyers argued that the courts could not hear the case
because it was a dispute within the executive branch over which the courts had no power or
jurisdiction. They also argued that the tapes should be protected by the president's executive
privilege. Executive privilege means that the communication between the president and his aides
has a certain level of confidentiality. While it is not a right specifically given to the president in
the Constitution, it is based on the constitutional separation of powers. Executive privilege
reflects the belief that those in the executive branch should be able to communicate with the
president, sharing their ideas without concern that their opinions will become the knowledge of
the other branches of the government or the public. Having this freedom encourages advisors to
be as honest and forthcoming as possible, which helps the president to make an informed
decision. This is particularly important in matters of national defense. President Nixon's lawyers
argued that only the president should be able to decide when his communications with his aides
can be revealed to the public or other branches of the government.
The Department of Justice, representing the people of the United States argued, however, that
executive privilege was not absolute. In this case, those normally confidential communications
were very important for a criminal case. If only the president had the power to decide when his
communications could be revealed to the public, then he could cover up information about illegal
activities and this would be dangerous for the legal system and the rule of law.
Questions to Consider:
1. Why might a president want to record conversations held in the Oval Office? Why do
you think President Nixon taped his conversations even though he was discussing illegal
activities with his aides?
2. Executive privilege itself cannot be found in the U.S. Constitution, but it comes from the
separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution. Explain what executive privilege is and
how it helps keep the executive branch independent from the other branches of
government.
3. Describe a circumstance in which it would be beneficial to the nation for a president to
keep communication with aides confidential.
4. Who should determine when the communications between a president and presidential
aides should be revealed, the president or the courts? If the president never has to reveal
conversations that are needed for a criminal trial, what effect could this have on the legal
system?
Decision
In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled in favor of the United States and against President
Nixon. Chief Justice Burger, wrote the opinion for the Court, which concluded that presidents
do enjoy a constitutionally protected executive privilege, but that the privilege was not
absolute. The Court decided that in this case, the President’s interest in keeping his
communications secret was outweighed by the interests of the judiciary in providing a fair trial
with full factual disclosure.
President Nixon’s attorneys first argued that the doctrine of separation of powers prevented the
Supreme Court from hearing this case at all. They asserted that because the judicial and
executive branches are separate, each with its own functions, the judicial branch should not be
allowed to interfere with the functioning of the executive branch. The Court rejected this
argument, responding that the case raised a constitutional question, and therefore clearly fell
within the functions of the judicial branch as interpreter of the Constitution. To support this
ruling, the justices cited the Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison, in which the Court declared
that “it is the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
President Nixon’s lawyers also asserted that the Court should find the president was entitled to
absolute executive privilege. This meant that he could not be forced to reveal any of his
confidential communications unless he chose to. The lawyers set out two reasons to support
their argument. First, the president needed honest advice from his advisors, and these advisors
might be uncomfortable giving advice if they knew that it could become public. Second, these
confidential communications were essential for the president to carry out the duties assigned to
the executive branch by the Constitution.
The Court acknowledged the validity of theses interests and that the president was entitled to a
degree executive privilege. This privilege was not determined to be absolute. In this case, the
interest of President Nixon in keeping his communications secret conflicted with the interests of
the judicial branch in providing a full and fair trial. A fair trial required full disclosure of all
facts and relevant information. The justices asserted that the interests of the president must be
balanced against the interests of the judicial branch when these interests conflict.
The justices reasoned that the judiciary’s interest in the “fair administration of criminal justice”
outweighed President Nixon’s interest in keeping the content of his tapes secret. One reason for
this was that the only issue before the Court was whether the trial judge could privately inspect
the tapes to determine whether they were essential to a fair trial. The justices further stated that
there would be cases in which the president’s need for confidentiality would outweigh the
interests of the judicial branch, such as when the secret communication involved “military,
diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets.”
Key Excerpts from the Opinion
The case was decided 8 to 0. Justice Rehnquist did not participate. Chief Justice Burger delivered
the opinion of the Court.
[W]e turn to the claim that the subpoena should be quashed because it demands "confidential
conversations between and President and his close advisors that it would be inconsistent with the
public interest to produce" . . . The first contention is a broad claim that the separation of powers
doctrine precludes judicial review of a President's claim of privilege. The second contention is
that if he does not prevail on the claim of absolute privilege, the court should hold as a matter of
constitutional law that the privilege prevails over the subpoena. . . .
In the performance of assigned constitutional duties each branch of the Government must
initially interpret the Constitution, and the interpretation of its powers by any branch is due great
respect from the others. The President's counsel as we have noted, reads the Constitution as
providing an absolute privilege of confidentiality for all Presidential communications. Many
decisions of this Court, however, have unequivocally reaffirmed the holding of Marbury v.
Madison . . . that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what
the law is".
Since this Court has consistently exercised the power to construe and delineate claims arising
under express powers, it must follow that the Court has the authority to interpret claims with
respect to powers alleged to derive from enumerated powers.
In support of his claim of absolute privilege, the President's counsel urges two grounds, one of
which is common to all governments and one of which is peculiar to our system of separation of
powers. The first ground is the valid need for protection of communications between high
government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold
duties; the importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion.
The second ground asserted by the President's counsel in support of the claim of absolute
privilege rests on the doctrine of separation of powers. . . . Here it is argued that the
independence of the Executive Branch within its own sphere . . . insulates a president from a
judicial subpoena in an ongoing criminal prosecution, and thereby protects confidential
presidential communications.
However, 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 advisers 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. Absent a claim of
need to protect military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to
accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential
communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera
inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.
The impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary
constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly
conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III.
Since we conclude that the legitimate needs of the judicial process may outweigh Presidential
privilege, it is necessary to resolve those competing interests in a manner that preserves the
essential functions of each branch.
A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of
shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express
except privately.
But this presumptive privilege must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule
of law. . . . We have elected to employ an adversary system of criminal justice in which the
parties contest all issues before a court of law. The need to develop all relevant facts in the
adversary system is both fundamental and comprehensive. The ends of criminal justice would be
defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts.
The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full
disclosure of all the facts, within the framework of the rules of evidence.
In this case we must weigh the importance of the general privilege of confidentiality of
Presidential communications in performance of the President's responsibilities against the
inroads of such a privilege on the fair administration of criminal justice.
We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for
use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail
over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal
justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for
evidence in a pending criminal trial.
Questions to Consider:
1. What does the Supreme Court of the United States say about President Nixon's
contention that the courts have no jurisdiction in this case? What was the power of the
courts established by the case of Marbury v. Madisoncited in this case?
2. Does the Court question the need for confidential communications between the president
and his advisors?
3. The Court claims that the president's confidential communications must be balanced
against, or considered in light of, other values. With what values, in this case, must the
president's confidentiality be balanced? According to the Court, which values take
precedence in this case?
4. If the Supreme Court of the United States had allowed President Nixon to keep the tapes
private, Chief Justice Burger claimed that "the very integrity of the judicial system and
public confidence in the system" was at risk. Do you agree with Chief Justice Burger?
Explain your answer.
5. In the case of United States v. Burr (1807), Chief Justice John Marshall stated that "[I]n
no case of this kind would a court be required to proceed against the president as against
an ordinary individual." Has the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixonproceeded
against the president as an ordinary individual? Why or why not?
6. Should the president be treated as an ordinary individual? Why or why not?