US vs Nixon

Doctrines:

Separation of powers is a doctrine of constitutional law under which the three branches of government
(executive, legislative, and judicial) are kept separate. This is also known as the system of checks and
balances, because each branch is given certain powers so as to check and balance the other branches.

“In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among 3
co-equal branches, the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the
separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence”.

Art II of the US Constitution:

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his
office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be
elected, as follows:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors,
equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the
Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United
States, shall be appointed an elector.
Art III of the US Constitution:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior
Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme
and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for
their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Facts:

 November 1972, Richard Nixon won a second term as president, decisively defeating the
Democratic candidate, George McGovern.
 But toward the end of the campaign a group of burglars broke into the Democratic Party
campaign headquarters in Washinton’s Watergate complex.
 Thanks to the determined investigative reporting of the Washington Post led by Carl Bernstein
and Bob Woodward, with the help of Mark Felt (aka “Deep Throat” and the associate director of
FBI), what had been a small news story soon expanded, as reporters uncovered tracks leading to
high government officials.
 The Nixon administration denied any wrongdoing, but it soon became clear that it had tried to
cover up the burglary and connections to it, connections that might even include the president.
 Soon public outcry grew, forcing Nixon to appoint a special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who was
charged with conducting the Watergate investigation for the government
 Jaworski obtained a subpoena ordering Nixon to release certain tapes and papers related to
specific meetings between the President and those indicted by the grand jury. Those tapes and
conversations revealed were believed to contain damaging evidence involving the indicted men
and perhaps the President himself.
 Although President Nixon released edited transcripts of some of the subpoenaed conversations,
his counsel filed a "special appearance" and moved to quash the subpoena on the grounds of
executive privilege
 District Court: denied the motion.
 The president appealed and the case was quickly brought to the Supreme Court.
 Nixon’s attorney argued that the matter should not be subject to “judicial resolution” since the
matter was a dispute within the executive branch and the branch should resolve the dispute itself.
 Nixon’s attorney, citing Art. II of the US Constitution, also claimed that Nixon had an absolute
executive privilege to protect communications between “high Government officials and those who
advise and assist them in carrying their duties”.

Issue:

1.) WON President Nixon’s executive privilege absolute. – NO

Neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high level
communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of
immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President's need for complete
candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great respect from the court. However, when the
privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the
confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of
need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to
accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential
communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera
inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.

The impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of primary
constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly
conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III.

Ruling:

In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled in favor of the United States and against President
Nixon.

 On August 5, 1974, transcripts of sixty-four tape recordings were released, including one that was
particularly damaging in regard to White House involvement in the Watergate cover-up. Three
days later, his support in Congress almost completely gone, Nixon announced that he would
resign.
 In brief, Watergate had reaffirmed that no person, not even the president of the US, is above the
law.
 Watergate helped set in motion what would become known as the “independent counsel”
law (for investigating top federal officials) and helped make whistle-blowing (on
wrongdoings in business and government) a legally sanctioned, if still risky and
courageous, act. Watergate invigorated an independent press, virtually spawning a
generation of investigative journalists.

Ratio:

Chief Justice Burger, citing the case of Marbury v. Madison and Cooper v. Aaron, affirms that
under the Constitution the courts have the final voice in determining constitutional questions, and
that no person, not even the president of the US, is above the law.

The court rejected the President’s claims of absolute executive privilege. The court turn to the claim that
the subpoena should be quashed because it demands “confidential conversations between a President
and his close advisors that it would be inconsistent with the public interest to produce.”
The right to the production of all evidence at a criminal trial similarly has constitutional dimensions.... In
this case we must weigh the importance of the general privilege of confidentiality of Presidential
communications in performance of his responsibilities against inroads of such privilege on the fair
administration of criminal justice. The interest in preserving confidentiality is weighty indeed and entitled
to great respect. However, we cannot conclude that advisers will be moved to temper the candor of their
remarks by the infrequent occasions of disclosure because of the possibility that such conversations will
be called for in the context of a criminal prosecution.

On the other hand, the allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a
criminal trial would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and gravely impair the basic
function of the courts. A President's acknowledged need for confidentiality in the communications of his
office is general in nature, whereas the constitutional need for production of relevant evidence in a
criminal proceeding is specific and central to the fair adjudication of a particular criminal case. Without
access to specific facts a criminal prosecution may be totally frustrated. The President's broad interest in
confidentiality of communications will not be vitiated by disclosure of a limited number of conversations
preliminarily shown to have some bearing on the pending trials. We conclude that when the ground for
asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the
generalized interests in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of
law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the
demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.

A President's communications and activities encompass a vastly wider range of sensitive material than
would be true of any "ordinary individual." It is therefore necessary in the public interest to afford
Presidential confidentiality the greatest protection consistent with the fair administration of justice.