United States v. Nixon
- Decided
- July 24, 1974
- Docket
- 73-1766
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,095 timesSuperseded by statute (verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute (1 of 12 verified; none is a verified overruling) · Republican Party of NM v. NM TAXATION
What later courts said
- holding that the presidential privilege is “inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the constitution” — Kelly v. City of San Jose (1987)
- concluding that a "sufficient likelihood" existed that the content of the tapes were "relevant" and "admissible" — United States v. Victor Arditti, United States of America v. Guillermo Avila (1992)
- holding that President of the United States must comply with subpoena duces tecum in a criminal case — In the Matter of Roche (1980)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court.
This litigation presents for review the denial of a motion, filed in the District Court on behalf of the President of the United States, in the case of United States v. Mitchell (D. C. Crim. No. 74-110), to quash a third-party-subpoena duces tecum issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, pursuant to Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 17 (c). The subpoena directed the President to produce certain tape recordings and documents relating to his conversations with aides and advisers. The court rejected the President’s claims of absolute executive privilege, of lack of jurisdiction, and of failure to satisfy the requirements of Rule 17 (c). The President appealed to the Court of Appeals. We granted both the United States’ petition for certiorari before judgment (No. 73-1766), [1] and also the President’s cross-petition for certio- [*687] rari before judgment (No. 73-1834), [2] because of the public importance of the issues presented and the need for their prompt resolution. 417 U. S. 927 and 960 (1974).
On March 1, 1974, a grand jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia returned an indictment charging seven named individuals [3] with various offenses, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and to obstruct justice. Although he was not designated as such in the indictment, the grand jury named the President, among others, as an unindicted co-conspirator. [4]
Statutes cited
Cite this
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.