U.S. v. Nixon Case Summary

On the night of May 28, 1972, a security guard patrolling the Watergate Hotel in Washington D.C. discovered tape holding open the door to the underground parking complex. He removed the tape, but when he returned half an hour later, someone had taped the door open again. The guard called D.C. police. Police found five men rummaging through the Democratic National Committee headquarters and arrested them.

What might have been a minor burglary would become a major political scandal and a landmark Supreme Court decision. One of the burglars was James W. McCord, Jr., the security director for the Committee to Re-Elect President Richard M. Nixon.

Background of the Case

The matter might have remained a minor break-in with minimal political implications. Then reporters for the Washington Post received a tip that the burglary involved other White House insiders. The reporters continued digging and reporting throughout the 1972 election and into the following year.

In September 1972, a federal court indicted the burglars and others, including McCord and Nixon confidants E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy. They were convicted in early 1973.

In January 1973, President Richard Nixon entered office for his second term. Almost immediately, the Watergate scandal started unraveling. During FBI confirmation hearings, incoming director L. Patrick Gray admitted that White House counsel John Dean had asked for daily updates on the investigation. At his sentencing hearing, McCord presented a letter saying he perjured himself during his earlier testimony. The letter implicated other government officials. From here, the investigation focused on the White House.

The Senate Watergate Committee Hearings

Beginning in April 1973, John Dean began cooperating with federal prosecutors. FBI director Gray and senior White House officials John Ehrlichman, H.R. Haldeman, and Richard Kleindienst resigned.

In June 1973, Dean told the Committee that based on his observations of what went on in the Oval Office, there was some kind of audiotape system within the office. The Committee called Alexander Butterfield to testify.

Butterfield, then administrator of the FAA, had worked for Haldeman and oversaw the installation of the vast recording system within the Oval Office and Executive Office Building. Butterfield admitted the system existed and described the nature and extent of the system to investigators.

Indictments of the "Watergate Seven"

In July 1973, the Senate Watergate Committee made an informal request for the recordings. Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox followed with a subpoena, which President Nixon refused, citing executive privilege. Up to this point, the investigation only involved the Committee to Re-Elect the President and the Watergate break-in. It was now clear to the Committee that the affair went much higher.

In October 1973, Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Cox. His superiors Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus resigned in what has become known as the "Saturday Night Massacre." Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski took over Cox's role.

In March 1974, a grand jury handed down indictments of the so-called "Watergate Seven." The charges were conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of justice, perjury, and other charges. The Watergate Seven were:

• John Mitchell, Nixon's campaign director and former Attorney General
• H.R. Haldeman, White House chief of staff.
• John Ehrlichman, Assistant in charge of domestic affairs.
• Charles "Chuck" Colson, White House counsel.
• Gordon Strachan, aide to Haldeman.
• Robert Mardian, aide to Mitchell.
• Kenneth Parkinson, counsel for CRP.

Special Prosecutor Jaworski persuaded the grand jury to name President Nixon as an "unindicted co-conspirator." Jaworski did not believe he had the authority to indict a sitting president. The indictments allowed both Jaworski and the House Judiciary Committee to issue subpoenas for the transcripts and the tape recordings themselves immediately.

Procedural History

The House Judiciary Committee began impeachment proceedings. Nixon refused to release more than edited transcripts of the recordings. Nixon's attorney, James St. Clair, took the case to U.S. District Court Judge John Sirica, asking him to quash the subpoena. Nixon's argument in defying the subpoena was that the President of the United States was not subject to any court except impeachment.

Nixon and Jaworski both requested a hearing from the Supreme Court of the United States since this was a matter of Constitutional interpretation. The Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Richard M. Nixon on July 8, 1974.

Arguments Presented

Jaworski argued that the president's claim exceeded the scope of office. Nixon was acting as the sole arbiter of the Constitution, a role that the Supreme Court had delegated to itself in Marbury v. Madison. Executive privilege did not flow from the Constitution but from deference given to the office.

Moreover, Jaworski insisted, the privilege did not include impeding due process in a pending criminal trial. The president should not be above the rule of law.

Nixon argued (through attorneys St. Clair and J. Fred Buzhardt) that:

• Presidents must be free to carry out presidential duties free of judicial interference
• Presidents must have the ability to retain confidential communications even if that interfered with criminal justice
• The U.S. Supreme Court could "advise" and "guide" the President's decisions but could not pass judgment on their legality
• Only Congress, with its impeachment power, could exercise control over presidential actions

St. Clair insisted that since the tapes were possible evidence in an impeachment case, their release was now a political matter. Only the executive branch could handle judicial matters within the executive branch.

Unfortunately for St. Clair, he could not resolve the conundrum presented by the Court:

Question: How are you going to impeach him if you don't know about it? [i.e., if Congress is also barred by executive privilege from securing the necessary evidence of presidential wrongdoing].

Mr. St. Clair: Well, if you know about it, then you can state the case. If you don't know about it, you don't have it.

Question: So there you are. You're on the prongs of a dilemma, huh?

Mr. St. Clair: No, I don't think so.

Question: If you know the President is doing something wrong, you can impeach him; but the only way you can find out is this way; you can't impeach him, so you don't impeach him. You lose me someplace along there. [Laughter.]

The Supreme Court's Ruling

Although the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision (8-0 with Justice Rehnquist abstaining), there was much dissent behind the scenes. Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justice Potter Stewart both felt that the Special Prosecutor lacked standing to bring the case. Justices Byron White and Lewis Powell thought the Court should issue a narrow ruling, only binding on Nixon.

All justices felt Nixon must release the tapes, and Justice William Brennan pushed for a unanimous decision to support the rule of law. Justice Thurgood Marshall felt a broad opinion would limit the concept of presidential privilege in the future.

The final ruling held that Nixon must release all tapes to the Special Prosecutor and to the House Judiciary Committee. More than that, it accomplished three things:

• It affirmed the president was subject to the rule of law. It affirmed that the president must obey a lawful subpoena and obey the dictates of the judicial process.
• It affirmed the concepts of judicial review and judicial sovereignty as established in Marbury v. Madison. Determining what the law says is the exclusive duty of the Supreme Court.
• It confirmed the ultimate separation of powers. The President argued that he has the right to interpret the Constitution as he sees fit. In this case, the Court established that only the Supreme Court has that right or ability.

The Court did not divest the office of the presidency of all power. The president retained all deference in defense, national security, and domestic policy. The president should receive all Constitutional protections, including presumptive rights of innocence and due process.

However, the unanimous court decision made it clear that the president must defer to the court in all matters of the law and Constitutional interpretation.