Significance: This ruling established that the U.S. president’s right to confidentiality was limited and must be balanced against the needs of the criminal justice system. This case gave federal courts the right to determine when and how to limit the president’s right to confidentiality.
Background: In 1972 a group of burglars were caught breaking in to Democratic campaign headquarters in the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. Investigators linked President Richard Nixon to a cover-up of the break-in, although it was never established who had actually ordered the burglary. After investigators learned that Nixon had secretly taped his conversations in the White House, the special prosecutor assigned to this case asked Nixon to hand over the tapes to confirm or deny his involvement. Nixon refused, but a district court judge issued an order requiring him to do so. Nixon instead filed an appeal with the court of appeals, and the special prosecutor filed a writ, or a formal order, appealing this case to the Supreme Court.
Decision: This case was argued on July 8, 1974, and decided on July 24, 1974, by a vote of 8 to 0. Justice William Rehnquist did not participate. Chief Justice Warren Burger spoke for the Court, which ruled that Nixon must turn over the tapes. Burger’s opinion stated that the president must have a certain amount of confidentiality, particularly in matters of defense and national security. This confidentiality was not boundless, however, and the decision of how to limit that confidentiality rested with the federal courts.
Excerpt from the Opinion of the Court: “Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications . . . can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity [protection] from judicial process under all circumstances. . . . Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the confidentiality of Presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection [inspections held privately in a judge’s chambers], and any absolute executive privilege under Art[icle] II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution.”
