US v.

Nixon (1974)

Watergate Case

Petitioner: United States of America

v.

Respondent: Richard M(Milhous). Nixon

OPINION: Unanimous for US

 Background

The Watergate scandal began in 1972 when five men were arrested for breaking into the Democratic
National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C.

These individuals were connected to Nixon's reelection campaign, and it was discovered that they had
broken in to wiretap phones and steal documents in an attempt to gather information on Nixon's
political opponents.

As investigations into the break-in continued, it became clear that the Nixon administration had been
involved in a series of illegal activities.

Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox had issued subpoenas for White House tapes that were believed to contain
evidence relevant to the investigation.

President Nixon was determined to prevent the release of the White House tapes. He ordered to fire Special
Prosecutor Archibald Cox.

The public and congressional outrage led to renewed calls for a special prosecutor.

Eventually, a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, was appointed, and the legal battles over access to the
White House tapes continued.

Facts

Jaworski filed for a subpoena for release of the white house tapes in court.

Nixon complied in part with the subpoena, releasing edited versions of dozens of conversations.

But Jaworski sought complete compliance with the subpoena.

President Nixon's legal team argued that the President had the constitutional right to keep his conversations
and communications confidential under Executive Privilege.

Executive privilege is the idea that the President should be able to receive candid advice from his advisors
without fear of public exposure.

Nixon's lawyers argued that forcing the President to turn over the White House tapes would set a dangerous
precedent for future presidents.

The President's legal team also suggested that some of the conversations on the tapes might contain
sensitive and classified information, and disclosing them could harm the nation's security.

The central argument from the side of the United States was that the tapes were critical pieces of evidence in
a criminal investigation.

Cox contended that the need for these tapes to establish the truth about the Watergate scandal outweighed
any claims of executive privilege. Failing to obtain the evidence would undermine the rule of law.
 Judgment

Justice Warren E. Burger delivered the opinion of the Court. The decision was unanimous and it ordered President
Richard Nixon to turn over the White House tapes, including those with conversations related to the Watergate
scandal, to the Special Prosecutor. Chief Justice Burger's opinion included several key points:

Burger acknowledged the importance of executive privilege, noting that it was fundamental to the operation
of the Executive Branch. He recognized that presidential communications often require confidentiality to
ensure candid advice and decision-making.

The opinion emphasized that executive privilege was not an absolute immunity. Burger stated that it must
yield in certain circumstances, particularly when there is a compelling need for evidence relevant to criminal
proceedings.

The Court recognized the Special Prosecutor's legitimate need for the tapes as evidence in the Watergate
investigation.

Burger emphasized the gravity of the allegations against the President and the importance of resolving the
issue promptly.

The Court emphasized that the preservation of evidence for criminal trials was a paramount concern, and the
President's claim of privilege should not interfere with that objective.

Burger underscored the importance of presidential accountability and stated that the President, like all
citizens, was subject to the law and the judicial process.

He emphasized that no person, not even the President, was above the law.

Chief Justice Burger clarified that the Court's ruling was limited to the specific circumstances of the case,
involving a criminal investigation.

It did not establish a precedent for broader issues of executive privilege in other contexts.

The Court concluded that the need for the evidence in the criminal case outweighed the President's claim of
privilege.

Therefore, it ordered the President to produce the tapes and other materials requested by the Special
Prosecutor.
 Significance

Executive Privilege (Implied Executive Privilege): The concept of executive privilege, though not explicitly
mentioned in the Constitution, is based on the separation of powers doctrine. It recognizes the President's
right to withhold certain information and communications from the other branches of government,
particularly when those communications are of a sensitive or confidential nature. The significance of this case
lies in clarifying that executive privilege is not an absolute right and can be subject to judicial review,
especially in cases involving a compelling need for evidence in criminal proceedings.

Checks and Balances: The case underscores the principle of the separation of powers among the three
branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. It highlights that the judiciary has the authority
to adjudicate disputes between the President (executive branch) and other branches, reinforcing the checks
and balances system that prevents any one branch from accumulating too much power.

Rule of Law: United States v. Nixon reinforces the fundamental principle that no one, not even the President,
is above the law. It emphasizes that government officials are accountable for their actions, and they can be
subject to legal proceedings when allegations of wrongdoing arise.

Presidential Accountability: The case underscores the concept of presidential accountability to the American
people and to the legal system. It shows that the President is subject to legal scrutiny and can be compelled
to provide evidence when necessary for criminal investigations, reinforcing the idea that the President is a
servant of the people and the Constitution.

Compelling Government Interest: The case highlights the principle that in certain circumstances, the
government's interest in obtaining evidence for a criminal prosecution may be so compelling that it
outweighs the assertion of executive privilege. This underscores the idea that individual rights and privileges
must be balanced against the broader interests of justice and the public.

Judicial Review: The case exemplifies the principle of judicial review, which is not explicitly mentioned in the
Constitution but was established by the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803). Judicial review allows the
Supreme Court to review the actions of the other branches of government, including the executive, to
determine their constitutionality. In United States v. Nixon, the Court exercised its power of judicial review to
evaluate the President's assertion of executive privilege, ultimately ruling that it did not extend to the specific
circumstances of the case.