United States v Nixon (1974): Supreme Court Cases | Academy 4 Social Change

Summary

The Watergate scandal, beginning with President Nixon’s covert team, the 'Plumbers,' led to a major constitutional confrontation. After illegal activities, including the Watergate break-in, came to light, Nixon’s refusal to turn over tapes led to a Supreme Court case, United States v. Nixon. The Court ruled that executive privilege could not protect the tapes, reinforcing that the president is not above the law. This decision marked a pivotal moment in U.S. governance, emphasizing the balance between executive power and judicial oversight, and set precedents for future legal challenges to executive privilege.

Takeaways

• 😀 The Watergate scandal began when President Nixon formed a covert team called 'the plumbers' to stop leaks in the White House, especially after the Pentagon Papers were released.
• 😀 The plumbers engaged in illegal activities, including harassing political enemies and protesters at Republican events, which ultimately led to the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate hotel in 1972.
• 😀 The Senate investigation revealed that Nixon had taped his White House meetings, which led to a legal battle over the release of these tapes.
• 😀 Special prosecutor Archibald Cox demanded the tapes, but Nixon ordered his firing, leading to the 'Saturday Night Massacre' where Nixon fired Attorney General Elliot Richardson and his deputy.
• 😀 Nixon's refusal to release the tapes, particularly one with a 20-minute gap, intensified the investigation, prompting a new special prosecutor and an impeachment inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee.
• 😀 Nixon claimed executive privilege to withhold the tapes, but the court ruled that executive privilege is not absolute and must be balanced against the need for evidence in criminal trials.
• 😀 The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Nixon had to release the tapes, establishing that no one, not even the president, is above the law.
• 😀 The tapes revealed that Nixon had attempted to cover up his involvement in the Watergate break-in and had conspired to give millions to the burglars.
• 😀 Nixon's former allies advised him to resign to avoid impeachment, and he resigned from office on August 8, 1974, following the Supreme Court's decision.
• 😀 The ruling in United States v. Nixon set a significant precedent by reinforcing that executive privilege does not override due process and the need for transparency in criminal investigations.
• 😀 Following his resignation, Nixon lost another case in 1977 (Nixon v. Administrator of General Services) where the court ruled he could not keep his presidential papers private under executive privilege, although he was defended in Nixon v. Fitzgerald on issues of presidential immunity.

Q & A

What was the initial purpose of the Plumbers in the Nixon administration?

The Plumbers were created to stop information from leaking from the White House, particularly after the release of the Pentagon Papers.

How were the Plumbers funded?

The Plumbers were funded through secret campaign contributions from the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP).

What event escalated the Watergate scandal to national significance?

The Watergate scandal escalated when top administration officials were implicated in the burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in 1972.

How did President Nixon respond when Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox tried to obtain the White House tapes?

President Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Cox. When Richardson and his deputy refused, Nixon fired them both in what became known as the Saturday Night Massacre.

What was the significance of the missing 20-minute gap in one of the tapes?

The missing 20-minute gap in one of the tapes was believed to be deliberately erased to cover up key conversations related to the Watergate scandal.

What claim did Nixon make regarding executive privilege during the investigation?

Nixon claimed executive privilege, arguing that the president had the right to withhold certain information to preserve confidentiality and national security.

What was the central issue the Supreme Court had to resolve in the United States v. Nixon case?

The Supreme Court had to balance the president's claim of executive privilege with the courts' power of judicial review, deciding whether the president could withhold evidence in a criminal investigation.

What did the Supreme Court rule in the United States v. Nixon case?

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that claims of executive privilege and separation of powers did not outweigh the need for evidence in a criminal trial, and ordered Nixon to produce the tapes.

How did the Supreme Court's decision impact Nixon's presidency?

The Supreme Court's decision had a fatal impact on Nixon's presidency, as it led to the release of the tapes, revealing his involvement in the Watergate cover-up and ultimately forcing his resignation.

What was the key message sent by the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Nixon?

The key message sent was that the president is not above the law and cannot invoke executive privilege to conceal unlawful actions, especially when there is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

What was the outcome of Nixon's 1977 Supreme Court case, Nixon v. Administrator of General Services?

In Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon could not claim executive privilege to keep all his presidential papers private.

How did the Supreme Court rule in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, and what did it protect?

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court ruled that the president has absolute immunity from lawsuits arising from actions taken within the scope of his official duties, protecting Nixon from an analyst's claim that he was fired illegally.

What other interests, besides due process, could outweigh claims of executive privilege?

Other interests that may outweigh claims of executive privilege include national security concerns, transparency in government, accountability for unlawful conduct, and the public's right to know about actions that may affect the public interest.