United States v. Nixon

Background:

In American history, few Supreme Court cases tested the limits of presidential power as directly as United States v. Nixon. The case emerged due to the Watergate scandal, beginning during the 1972 presidential campaign between President Nixon and his Democratic challenger, Senator George McGovern of South Dakota. On June 17, 1972, less than five months before the election, five men broke into Democratic National Committee headquarters, in the Watergate Office Building in Washington, D.C. These five men were later found to have ties with the Nixon administration, and his reelection campaign. This political controversy later forced President Richard Nixon to resign from office. In May 1973, Attorney General Elliot Richardson appointed Archibald Cox to be the special prosecutor  investigating the break-in. Later on in the same year, on October 20, Nixon ordered that Cox be fired, leading to the immediate departures of both Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus. This became known as the Saturday Night Massacre. Cox being fired led to very large public and political protests, forcing Nixon to appoint a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski. At the center of the case was one major constitutional question: could the President of the United States refuse to hand over evidence during a criminal investigation by claiming executive privilege? 

The Case:

In April 1974, Jaworski obtained a subpoena ordering Nixon to release secret tapes and papers from specific meetings in the White House between the President and those indicted by the grand jury. These items contained proof of conversations between Nixon and his aides, who were facing criminal charges for the Watergate scandal. The prosecutor wanted this evidence to figure out if Nixon was also involved in the crimes. Nixon eventually turned over edited transcripts of 43 total conversations, including portions of 20 conversations demanded by the subpoena. James D. St. Clair, President Nixon's attorney, then requested Judge John Sirica of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to quash, or legally cancel, the subpoena. This was requested so President Nixon would not be forced to comply with its demands. 

Debates From Each Side:

Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, and later Leon Jaworski, had demanded access to the full tapes because they were believed to contain evidence related to the cover-up of the break-in. Nixon refused to release them, arguing that he, as president, had executive privilege, meaning certain communications within the executive branch had to remain confidential in order for the government to function effectively. Nixon believed that forcing the president to release private conversations would lead to the weakening of the independence of the executive branch. On the contrary, the United States, represented by the Watergate Special Prosecutor, Leon Jaworski believed it was necessary for the investigation, and the president did not have the authority to interfere. Sirica denied Nixon's motion to quash the subpoena and ordered the President to turn the tapes over by May 31. Both Nixon and Jaworski appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments on July 8. 

Verdict:

In an 8–0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon. The justices acknowledged that executive privilege existed in some situations, especially involving national security or military matters, but determined that it was not unlimited. The Court held that no president is above the law and that the need for evidence in a criminal investigation outweighed Nixon’s claim of confidentiality. After Nixon was forced to release the tapes, they revealed his involvement in efforts to obstruct the investigation. Public and political support for Nixon rapidly collapsed, and facing almost certain impeachment, he resigned from office on August 8, 1974. He remains to this day, the only U.S. president to ever resign. 

Legacy:

This ruling remains historically significant, as it reinforced the constitutional principle of checks and balances. Even though the president leads the executive branch, the judicial branch still has the authority to review presidential actions and ensure they follow the Constitution. The decision simultaneously strengthened the idea that the rule of law applies equally to every citizen, including the president. It solidified the idea that a president can’t withhold information for confidentiality in an active investigation, as they do not have the power or authority to do so. As modern debates over executive privilege and presidential accountability still appear, this case remains important. It serves as precedent for presidential power, especially in regards to records requested for an investigation, reiterating that no president is above the law.