United States v. Nixon
Issues: Watergate, Checks and Balances
Background:
- In 1972, five burglars broke into the Democratic National Committee Headquarters. This is the national office of the Democratic Party. There, party members make decisions relating to political campaigns. They also decide how they will raise money to help the candidates.
- The burglars were caught. Later, investigators discovered that President Nixon and his aides were involved in the burglary. They had hired people to break into the offices. They wanted to get information that would help Nixon get re-elected. Investigators discovered that the president and his aides had committed other illegal acts, too.
- In the United States, the president has to follow the rule of law. If he breaks the law, he can be put on trial. Since President Nixon broke the law, the federal government decided to prosecute him. The government gathered evidence against him. They discovered that President Nixon had a tape recorder in the Oval Office. He taped most of what happened in his office. The tapes included conversations he had with his aides.
- The prosecutor in the case believed that the tapes probably had information about the illegal things President Nixon and his aides had done. He asked President Nixon to turn over the tapes. Nixon said no. A federal judge told him he had to give the tapes to the prosecutor.
- The president appealed the decision to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The prosecutor asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case instead. The Court agreed to hear the case because it was so important.
- President Nixon's lawyers argued that the president's tapes were protected by executive privilege. This is the belief that the conversations between the president and his aides are confidential. Sometimes, these discussions need to be private to protect the country. Other times, privacy is needed to protect the advisors. They need to be able to give the president advice without worrying about being criticized by other people. That way, they can be honest with the president. Their honest opinions help the president to make decisions.
- The lawyers for the United States said that the tapes were necessary to prove that the president had committed a crime. They argued that justice in this criminal case was more important than protecting the privacy of the president and his aides. Therefore, President Nixon should turn over the tapes.
- 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.”
Case # & Citation:
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
- Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2015, from http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/united_states_v_nixon