18. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S.

683 (1974)

Facts
This case arose from the Watergate scandal, following a burglary at the Democrat
Party headquarters in the Watergate building complex in Washington, D.C. President
Richard Nixon, who was contesting the 1972 presidential election against Democrat
candidate George McGovern, sought to quash a subpoena obtained by special
prosecutor Leon Jaworski, who had been appointed to investigate the burglary.
(Nixon had fired the initial special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, as well as Attorney
General Elliot Richardson during the infamous Saturday Night Massacre.)

The subpoena was designed to give Jaworski access to tapes and papers that
concerned meetings between Nixon and people who had been indicted in connection
with the burglary. There were reasonable grounds to believe that this evidence
contained statements that would be damaging to Nixon as well as the indicted
people. Nixon complied in part with the subpoena, releasing edited versions of
dozens of conversations and parts of 20 conversations that the subpoena had
named. However, he asked the federal court to quash the subpoena based on lack of
necessity and the President's executive privilege. Nixon's attorney also attempted to
argue that courts were not qualified to hear disputes regarding these
communications within the executive branch. The federal district court denied the
request to quash, while Jaworski sought complete compliance with the subpoena.
Both parties appealed, and the Supreme Court expedited its review to hear
arguments within a month.

Issue

Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive

privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review?

Ruling

No. The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the
generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can
sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court granted that there
was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave
preference to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair
administration of justice."

Although the courts will afford the utmost deference to Presidential acts in the
performance of an Art. II function, United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 190, 191-
192 (No. 14,694), when a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed
for use in a criminal trial is based, as it is here, not on the ground that military or
diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest
in confidentiality, the President's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the
demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the
fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal
justice.
Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes and
documents. Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes.