United States v. Nixon

United States v. Nixon

1. On March 1, 1974 a grand jury returned an indictment charging seven of President Nixon's close aides with various offenses, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and to obstruct justice having to do with the Watergate Affair.

2. After President Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator, he was issued a subpoena by the U.S. District Court to produce in advance of the September 9th trial date, of certain tapes, memoranda, papers, transcripts, or other writings related to certain identified meetings between him and others.

3. Nixon only released some of the tapes required in the subpoena and asserted that he was immune from this subpoena filing a motion to quash it based on executive privilege. He said because it demands "confidential conversations between a President and his close advisors that would be inconsistent with the public interest to produce.

4. The District Court rejected Nixon's motion saying that the judiciary, not the President, was the final arbiter of a claim of executive privilege. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court by the President.

Issue :

1. Does the court have jurisdiction to hear this case?

2. Does executive privilege outweigh the need to enforce the subpoena?

3. Does the enforcement of the subpoena guarantee the right of the accused according to the 5th and 6th Amendments?

Decision :

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. District Court ruling was affirmed, and the President must abide by the subpoena.

Reasoning :

1. The court stated that they did have power to hear this case: "Since the court has consistently exercised the power to construe and delineate claims arising under express powers, it must follow that the Court has authority to interpret claims with respect to powers alleged to derive from enumerated powers."

2. The court said that it was difficult decide with the argument of executive privilege because there was no real claim to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets.

3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in 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 justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.