(Case Brief) US v. Nixon PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Brief, Professor Charles Wharton...

Description

American Constitutional Law US v. Nixon Case Brief 1) Facts In June 1972, five men with bugging equipment were arrested in the DNC offices in Washington, D.C. and convicted of burglary. Investigations by a Senate select committee found that the men were members of President Nixon’s reelection committee and that Nixon also had a taping system that recorded all his conversations with his political advisors in the Oval Office. Because there was doubt whether the President was involved, a Special Prosecutor was appointed who was unbiased and independent with the authority of the judicial branch. A normal prosecutor of the executive branch would have undue pressure from the President. The President sought to fire that Prosecutor. The President handed over “unprivileged” parts of the tapes, but he withheld some of the tapes. The Senate committee subpoenaed the remaining tapes, but Nixon claimed the tapes were protected under executive privilege, which was the right for a branch of government to withhold information from another branch. After the case, Gerald Ford was put into office as the VP and then became President. Ford was never elected. 2) Procedural History President Nixon filed a motion with the District Court trying to stop the subpoena of the tapes from his Oval Office; however, the court rejected that the dispute between Nixon and the Special Prosecutor was an “intra-executive” matter and that the court had no jurisdiction over the issue and also that the tapes were protected by executive privilege. 3) Issues/Questions Presented Does the President of the United States have an absolute and unqualified privilege of immunity due to the doctrine of separation of powers and government confidentiality?  Though the President interpreted the Constitution in this way, the Supreme Court’s interpretation is final o Marbury v. Madison  An absolute and unqualified privilege conflicts with the judicial branch’s enumerated duties; justice requires full disclosure of all facts  Due process of law + 6th amendment overrides confidentiality argument o All citizens have rights but all citizens succumb to the rule of law  Executive privilege are implied powers, but there also has been precedent Is the dispute between the President Nixon and the Special Prosecutor beyond the jurisdiction of the court because it is considered an intra-branch matter between a subordinate and a superior? Is this dispute justiciable?  Article III (the judicial branch) Section 2 – judicial power shall extend to all cases regarding…  Nixon argued the issue is within the executive branch and so there is no case  Because the Prosecutor within the executive branch  Executive-judicial branch conflict BECAUSE there is a pending criminal prosecution, which is where the judicial branch is deriving its power

 The President has to obey what the prosecutor is requesting just like anyone else in a regular criminal case  Overall, if the judicial branch cannot subpoena the President, the President may be considered “above the law” Rule 17(c) – “issuance of subpoenas duces tecum in federal criminal proceedings”  Subpoena must be relevant, admissible, and specific  Nixon argues that the evidence sought was not relevant 4) Holding/Conclusions The Supreme Court unanimously decided that the idea of separation of powers does not guarantee an absolute and unqualified executive privilege. Instead, the executive privilege is limited to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice" and can only apply when military or diplomatic secrets will be compromised. 5) Analysis/Reasoning While President Nixon’s counsel argued that the court should not intervene in affairs of other branches, the court assertion that this reason alone does not prove the court’s lack of jurisdiction. The case involves a criminal prosecution (the five men captured in the DNC building) of which the Special Prosecutor is in charge. Under the Attorney General, the Special Prosecutor has unique authority to invoke the president’s executive privilege when seeking evidence relevant to the criminal case. Nixon’s counsel argued for his power of executive privilege on two grounds – the doctrine of separation of powers and the need for confidentiality of government communications. The Court ruled that the executive privilege is not absolute and unqualified and can be used in situations of military/national security/diplomatic secrecy, which doesn’t apply in this case. The need for confidentiality was shot down with the claim that government candor and transparency with the general public is fundamental to governmental values and breeds a tendency for self-interested decision-making because of the lack of accountability. 6) Your comments The case establishes the understanding that even though the branches of American government are “separate”, they are also interdependent in a way that prevents “tyranny”. The interplay of legal aspects The judicial branch needs to be able to exercise the rule of the law even over the President. The leader of a good government has to be below the law....