1. Megan James
1
United States v. Nixon
418 U.S. 683 (1974)
FACTS
The Watergate Scandal created numerous court actions when it began on June 17, 1972. On
that day seven men broke into the Democratic National Committee Headquarters located in the
Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. The men were caught and charged with criminal
offenses. Coincidently, all men had connections to either the White House of the Committee to
Reelect the President, at the time Nixon. Five out of the seven men plead guilty and two were
convicted. Once the trial ended, one of the men claimed he had been pressured to plead guilty
and others involved had not even been tried. Many people began believing that this was just a
small fraction of the corruption and shady dealings engaged in by those closest to the Nixon
Administration. On May 17, 1973 the Senate began their Watergate investigation. John Dean III
became the star witness as he was special counsel to the President. Dean alleged that officials
high in the President’s office were involved and that even Nixon had known about the events.
Alexander Butterfield then testified as Nixon’s advisor shocking everyone even more when he
revealed that the President had secret cameras installed in the Oval Office. Those very tape
recordings hold the settlement between the White House’s involvements in Watergate, so of
course the Nixon Administration declined to release them. A special prosecutor was also
appointed to look into the Watergate incident. Archibald Cox was the first to hold this position.
Cox asked Nixon to hand the tapes over and when Nixon declined Cox went to get a court order
requiring him to deliver the tapes. The District and Appeals Court ruled in favor of Cox. Nixon
then offered to release summaries of the tapes, but that was unsatisfactory. Nixon the ordered
Cox to be fired, and in return two of the highest officials in the Judicial Department resigned,
Solicitor General Robert Bork became the acting attorney general. With this position, he
dismissed Cox, this became known as the “Saturday Night Massacre.” During this time
Americans began the idea of presidential impeachment. Leon Jaworski was appointed to
replace Cox and also relentlessly requested the tapes. Finally, Nixon agreed to produce some of
the tapes, which had been heavily edited also indicating certain parts had been erased.
Jaworski obtained criminal indictments for many of Nixon’s aides although Nixon was never
charged. The House of Judiciary began an investigation into the impeachment of the President.
The Judiciary Committee and Jaworski demanded more of the tapes and Nixon refused citing
his executive privilege to decide what would be released and what would be kept secret. The
District Court issued a final subpoena duces tecum. Both Nixon and the United States asked the
Supreme Court to review the case and the Justices accepted bypassing the Court of Appeals.

2. Megan James
2
ISSUE
1. Can Nixon quash the subpoena due to his Presidential Privilege of Immunity?
2. Does the president have presidential immunity over the people’s interests?
HOLDING
The United States Supreme Court held in an eight count decision that affirmed the District
Court’s decision to deny the motion to quash the subpoena because President Nixon did not
have privilege of immunity from the judicial process. Assertion of the general privilege of
confidentiality could not prevail over an apparent need for evidence in a pending criminal case.
REASONING
Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court discussing and breaking down the
President’s privileges and absolute privilege. Because of separation of powers, the Executive
Branch within itself protects the President from a judicial subpoena in an ongoing prosecution
and thereby protects the President’s communications. Burger states that even with the
doctrine of separation of powers, it is not possible for the President to obtain absolute privilege
of immunity from the judicial process in every circumstance. The Court finds it necessary for the
President to keep top level communications between the need to protect the military,
diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the Court finds it hard to vest absolute
immunity privilege to the President under these circumstances. The Court references the
Constitution, the Sixth Amendment. This requires the right to produce all evidence at a criminal
trial has constitutional dimensions that must be met. The Fifth Amendment also calls for fair
due process and because of those two amendments it is essential that all evidence, relevant
and admissible, be produced. The Court accepts the need for confidentiality in communications
of his office of “general nature” but the Constitutions blatant need for production of relevant
evidence in a criminal proceeding is specific and central to the fair adjudication of a particular
case. The Court made very clear that the people’s interest in the fair administration of criminal
justice outweighed the president’s interest in confidentiality.
IMPORTANCE
The case of United States v. Nixon is a significant case in dealing with presidential privilege and
the boundaries of such. The case came during a crucial time when the Constitution was being
severely questioned in terms of the three branches and separation of powers.