United v. Nixon
United v. Nixon
Nixon
Facts: This is a review of the denial of the motion to quash third party
subpoena duces tecum issued by US District Court pursuant to Fed.
Rule Crim Procedure 17 (c ). Subpoena is directed to US Pres to
produce certain tape recordings and documents relating to his
conversations with his aides and advisers. District court rejected US
Presidents claims of executive privilege, lack of jurisdiction and failure
to satisfy requirements of Rule 17( c). Hence this appeal.
Presidents counsel: a.) Constitution provides an absolute privilege of
confidentiality for all presidential communications; b.) there is a valid
need for protection of communications between high government
officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of
their manifold duties; c.) claim of absolute privilege rests on doctrine of
separation of powers
Issue: WON District court erred in authorizing the issuance of
subpoena. Held: No, Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the
District court.
Ratio: In Marbury v. Madison, it has been held that it is emphatically
the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law
is.
Claim of absolute privilege Court: There is no absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of
immunity from judicial process absent any claim of need to protect
military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets.
The impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in
the way of the primary constitutional duty of the judicial branch to do
justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function
of courts under Art III.
Framers of Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system but
separation of powers were not intended to operate with absolute
independence. While the Constitution diffuses power the better to
secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the
dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its
branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but
reciprocity.
Legitimate needs of judicial process may outweigh presidential
privilege. President and his aides must be free to explore alternatives
in shaping policies and making decisions; however, such privilege must
be considered in light of commitment under the rule of law. There is a
need to employ adversary system of criminal justice in which parties
contest all issues before a court of law.
Thus, when the ground for executive privilege as to subpoenaed
materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the