Julie Lindley
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
Facts: After the Watergate scandal claims were made that President Nixon possessed
tapes with recorded conversations relevant to the investigation. This began in
investigation by the Senate. Nixon was able to have the first special prosecutor fired, but
the next Jaworski, and the Judiciary Committee continued to demand the tapes. After
tapes that appeared to have been tampered with were presented, the District Court
ordered a subpoena duces tecum. Nixon claimed that the subpoena should be “quashed”
due to his “absolute privilege” for 2 reasons; 1) Protection of communications and 2)
Separation of powers which makes him immune from being subpoenaed in criminal
prosecutions. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court, and cert was granted on an
“expedited basis” to bypass the Court of Appeals.
Issues: 1) Does the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to hear “intra-branch disputes”?
2) Was Federal Rule 17 satisfied? 3) Does separation of powers prevent judicial review
of presidential privilege? 4) If it does not, does constitutional law allowing for the
privilege prevail over a subpoena duces tecum?
Held: 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) No 4) No
Reasoning: (Chief Justice Burger for a 8-0 Court, Rehnquist did not participate)
To 1. The Court is operating within the scope of Article III of the constitution
because this case is a federal criminal prosecution.
To 2. The Special Prosecutor sufficiently showed that a subpoena was necessary
before the trial in order to review the evidence “in camera”.
To 3. Article III Section 1 solely gives federal courts the “judicial power of the
United States”. This provides as systems of checks, in this case of the executive
branch. This was affirmed by the Court in Marbury v. Madison when Marshall
wrote that it is the, “…duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” The
intent of the Framers was a “comprehensive system” which prevents the “absolute
independence” claim against judicial review. There may not be precedent
showing that the judiciary has the right to review confidentiality claims, but other
legislative and executive exercises of power have previously been invalidated by
the court. This again shows the validity of judicial review in this case.
To 4. Executive privilege is a valid inherent power due to logical reasoning. The
Court grants that presidential privilege is an implied power that, “…flows from
the nature of enumerated powers…,” but the constitutional charge on the judiciary
to ensure due process of law under the 5th and 6th amendments, and to provide for
the administration of justice, outweigh the President’s claim to confidentiality. In
this case there are no military or diplomatic secrets that will threaten national
security so the fundamental right’s of the people prevail.
Decision: Affirmed
Dissents: None
Significance: Burger reaffirmed the power of judicial review by first establishing the
constitutional power of the court, and then by relying on the precedent of Marbury. The
Court also limited the inherent power of the president to exercise executive privilege of
confidentiality. The administration of justice was deemed more important, and
consequently the ruling limited the power of the president by placing a check on an
inherent power.