United States v. Nixon

Facts

A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an indictment on March 1, 1974, charging seven individuals with offenses that included conspiracy to defraud the United States and to obstruct justice. The grand jury also named the President, among others, as an unindicted co-conspirator. On April 18, 1974, at the request of the Special Prosecutor, the district court issued a subpoena duces tecum (a subpoena to produce documents or objects) to the President under Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 17(c). It required him to produce tapes, memoranda, papers, and transcripts relating to certain precisely identified meetings between him and others, in advance of the September 9 trial date. The Special Prosecutor was an official to whom the Attorney General had delegated, by regulation, authority to represent the United States in these matters, including the power to contest claims of executive privilege. On April 30, the President publicly released edited transcripts of 43 conversations, including portions of 20 that were subject to the subpoena. On May 1, 1974, his counsel moved to quash the subpoena and filed a formal claim of privilege. The claim rested on the confidentiality of conversations between a President and his close advisers. The President did not claim that the conversations were military or diplomatic secrets.

Issues

1. Was the district court's order appealable so that the case was properly before the Supreme Court, and was the dispute between the Special Prosecutor and the President, both Executive Branch officers, a justiciable controversy?
2. Did the Special Prosecutor satisfy the requirements of Rule 17(c) for a pretrial subpoena duces tecum directed to the President?
3. Does the separation of powers, or the need for confidentiality of Presidential communications, give the President an absolute privilege that courts cannot review?
4. Can a President's generalized interest in the confidentiality of his communications defeat a subpoena for evidence needed in a pending criminal trial?

Holding

The Court held that the subpoena satisfied Rule 17(c), that the dispute was justiciable, and that the President's generalized claim of confidentiality could not defeat a subpoena for evidence in a pending criminal trial. The District Court's order that the materials be delivered for in camera inspection was affirmed.